i

Evaluation of Priorities and Costs in Species Recovery Plans:

Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonorensis), Louisiana

Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) and Sierra Nevada Bighorn

Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra)

by

Matthew G. Ritter

A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Studies

The Evergreen State College April 2013

ii

©2012 by Matthew G. Ritter. All rights reserved.

iii

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree

by

Matthew G. Ritter

has been approved for

The Evergreen State College

by

________________________ Ralph Murphy, Ph.D.

Member of the Faculty

________________________ Date

iv

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of Priorities and Costs in Species Recovery Plans: Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana sonorensis), Louisiana Black Bear

(Ursus americanus luteolus) and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis sierra)

Matthew G. Ritter

Recovery Plans are crucial in preventing a species from extinction. Without such plans several species would go extinct because of resource limitation. The research examined how Species Recovery Plans were funded and implemented by government stakeholders, and how the spending compared to the goals laid out in the Recovery Plans for the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This answered how stakeholder expenditures affect the implementation of tasks outlined in the Recovery Plan and compare the results with the species status. The research determined the effectiveness of Species Recovery Plans and if tasks were being funded appropriately. The methodological approaches for the thesis consisted of a literature review, and budget analysis. One species was over budget, one was on budget, and the other was under budget. Overall, funds were contributed accordingly because Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations all remained stable from 2007 to 2010. Expenditures were properly directed to the tasks of most concern producing stable populations in 2012.

v

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

2. Methods ....................................................................................................................... 4

3. Case Study ................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Sonoran Pronghorn ............................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Analysis....................................................................................................... 15

3.1.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 34

3.2 Louisiana Black Bear ......................................................................................... 37

3.2.1 Background ................................................................................................. 37

3.2.2 Analysis....................................................................................................... 40

3.2.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 58

3.3 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep ............................................................................ 60

3.3.1 Background ................................................................................................. 60

3.3.2 Analysis....................................................................................................... 64

3.3.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 76

4. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 80

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 82

6. Works Cited ............................................................................................................... 87

vi

Acknowledgments

This thesis is the conclusion of inspiration and knowledge from all of the courses that I have taken in the M.E.S. program. Thank you Ralph Murphy for your patience, your insightful recommendations, and above all your mentorship throughout this thesis process. I also thank the other M.E.S. faculty members who helped set a foundation in the interdisciplinary studies for this thesis. Thank you.

1

1. Introduction

The Endangered Species Act declares “…the United States has pledged itself as a

sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the

various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.” To date the Endangered

Species Act is the most important legal document providing protection for twelve

hundred species threatened with extinction (USFWS, 2010). The goal of the Act is to

recover a species until the risk of extinction no longer persists. For the protection of

Endangered Species, Section Four was amended in 1988 to require developing recovery

plans for each listed species unless a plan would not help in recovering the species

(Crouse, 2002). Species Recovery Plans present an outline protecting a species from

extinction developed through a combination of policy, economics, and science.

Recovery Plans provide a roadmap for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

biologists to recover a species. Each plan incorporates a species’ description and current

population, containing the most up-to-date information on the species. The recovery

objective also needs to be identified, indicating when the goal is met. One example is

setting a target population number (Simon, 1995). An implementation schedule outlining

priority tasks and expenditure estimates must be included in the Recovery Plan and last,

relevant external views of the plan need to be identified in an appendix (Restani, 2002).

Plans go through intense draft processes before finalization and it is up to USFWS

Regional Directors to determine the suitability of a Species Plan after a recovery team

forms and develops the Plan. Recovery Teams include a diverse background of people

from tribal members to home building associations (Crouse, 2002). The team includes

2

representatives from several backgrounds to produce an objective plan while taking into

consideration stakeholders’ needs. The process of developing and writing a plan is

circumstantial to a species and too complex to completely grasp (Baker, 1999). After the

drafting process the plan is independently peer reviewed and published for public input.

Once all reviews are analyzed the plan can be finalized (Baker, 1999).

The two agencies responsible for developing and administering Recovery Plans

are USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Recovery Plans identify

actions that might be taken by a variety of agencies and private entities to promote the

conservation of a listed species (Crouse, 1999). Recovery teams prioritize actions to

guide scarce resource expenditures to the most important priorities. The Plans, also, assist

biologist in determining effects projects have on the endangered species and identify

ways to avoid them (under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). No plan is perfect,

limitations exist, yet 99% of species listed have been saved from extinction (USFWS,

2011).

Additionally, the complexity of ecological systems makes it difficult for biologist

to completely understand therefore, Recovery Plans are based on the most current

available data, yet gaps exists. Researcher Deborah Crouse explains this time lapse may

“…allow further deterioration in the species status’ and, in some cases, an irreversible

loss of populations or habitat” (Crouse, 720). Data can be difficult to obtain therefore the

recovery process is further delayed (Crouse, 2002).

Unfortunately, Plans are required by law to be developed, yet no law exists

enforcing them. State and other federal agencies escape enforcing any plan, leaving the

3

burden to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, plus

affected stakeholders (Crouse, 2002).

Additionally, USFWS prioritizes species threatened with extinction through a

ranking system. The model ranks a species with number one being of the most concern

and 18 being least. The number relates to the degree of threat, recovery potential, and

taxonomy (Simon, 1995). For example the Sonoran Pronghorn and Sierra Nevada

Bighorn Sheep have a ranking of 3C, while the Louisiana Black Bear has a ranking of

9C. The “C” represents a subspecies and explains the Bear is of less concern than the

Pronghorn and Bighorn according to USFWS. The ranking system provides USFWS with

a list of species most threatened with extinction.

In 1995, USFWS spent $348 million on endangered species recovery; today that

number is $1.62 billion (Baker, 2010). USFWS’s expenditures increased over 400

percent in 15 years yet listed species have only increased from 1,179 in 1998, to 1200 in

2010 and much of the funding goes towards few select charismatic species (Brown,

1998). A small number of species have been listed in the last decade, but the cost of

recovery increased at alarming rates explaining the variations in expenditures. Although

USFWS may spend more on particular species fortunately, most endangered species

populations are recovering or stable in the United States (Brown, 1998).

In conclusion, Recovery Plans are crucial in preventing a species from extinction.

Without such plans several species would go extinct because of resource limitation.

Policy, economics, and science provide significant detail in developing a Species

Recovery Plan. The partnership between each assists in maintaining the existence of

4

many species. Since 1969, 99% of endangered species in the United States have

overcome extinction through the efforts of USFWS and other government stakeholders.

2. Methods

The thesis looked into how Species Recovery Plans were funded and

implemented by government stakeholders, and how the spending compared to the goals

laid out in the Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear, and

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This was to answer how stakeholder expenditures affect

the implementation of tasks outlined in the Recovery Plan and compare the results with

the species status. This is to determine the effectiveness Species Recovery Plans and if

tasks are being funded appropriately. Specific methods like spreadsheets and pie charts

determined and evaluated where funds were implemented for each of the species between

2007 and 2010.

The methodological approaches for the thesis consisted of a literature review, and

budget analysis. The literature review provided information concerning the species

biology, demographics, threats, endangerment, and other valuable population

information. Additionally, peer-reviewed articles produced the foundation for estimating

recovery costs for each species and identified background information for a budget

analyses on these endangered species plans and the goals for delisting them.

The thesis was a budgetary analysis of three Species Recovery Plans analyzed

between 2007 and 2010. Four years was enough time to understand trends and

differences between each Plan to determine the successes of the species recovery and

how it compares to the goals of the Recovery Plan. To better understand the goals of the

5

Recovery Plan and stakeholders involved Excel was used to produce graphs, charts, and

spreadsheet of the raw data.

Among several other chapters in a Species Recovery Plan are the cost and

implementation schedules. USFWS went to great lengths to develop tasks, list costs,

determine responsible agencies, and estimate task completion dates for each species. The

cost and implementation schedules were taken from each Plan and categories were

created illustrating priority recovery efforts in a spreadsheet.

Moreover, tasks were defined as projects regarding the species’ recovery. The

tasks were entered into a spreadsheet and defined under the task description. Tasks were

then assigned to each category with their appropriate cost estimates and responsible

stakeholders. Accountable parties were defined in the Recovery Plan as government and

non-government entities, but the thesis only analyzed government stakeholders.

The implementation schedule was determined through published USFWS

documents. For every endangered species the agency set up an execution report. The

reports were updated regularly and illustrated past, present, and future tasks, the status of

different projects, estimated task costs to date, and agency comments. The

implementation report was filtered for only ongoing and current projects between 2007

and 2010 to obtain a clear understanding of what exactly was going on with the recovery

for a given year.

Out of all the tasks developed in the Species Recovery Plan only ongoing and/or

current tasks between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed for the study. The tasks were then

placed under the appropriate categories and estimated expenditure totals were calculated.

6

Totals amounted to the entire number of expenditures per priority. Cost estimates were

developed from the Plans, government publications, and other peer reviewed articles.

Furthermore, expenditures were determined through plan updates and critical

habitat publications. After careful review of all publications related to costs, estimates

were calculated. Cost estimates were determined from the most recent publications and

peer review articles.

Overall, spreadsheets illustrated species recovery priorities, tasks, task

descriptions, responsible stakeholders, and estimated costs. This information

demonstrated which priority received the most funding and it was assumed the priority

receiving the most funding was the highest priority set forth in the Plan by the Recovery

Team.

To compare this information to actual spending U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

produced expenditure reports each year illustrating costs for listed species, federal

Department spending, State expenses, and individual agency contributions. The

document provided exact annual funding contributions from various agencies on a

specific species and the total costs of that species’ recovery annually. Agencies that

provided funding between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed individually to better understand

their role in the species recovery.

Stakeholders were arranged under each Federal Department in a spreadsheet with

the appropriate year and financial contributions. Pie charts illustrated percentages for

stakeholder financial contributions from the spreadsheets. Agencies contributing less than

1% of funds were not analyzed in the study because their contribution did not have an

impact on the overall implementation of task processes.

7

Once stakeholders were acknowledged they were researched individually to

answer why they were contributing that specific year. Peer reviewed articles and

government publications answered questions regarding agency funding and activities for

that year. The analysis gave background about the agency, land they manage in the

vicinity of the endangered species, any activities they have going on around the species,

and their recovery efforts for the species to examine the reason why they were involved

in the Recovery.

Current recovery projects, expenditures for each priority, and population

estimates were all examined and compared to the goals outlined in the Recovery Plan for

delisting the species. The results showed how effective recovery spending was by

comparing priority costs with Recovery Plan goals and the species’ current population

trends. Additionally, it answered how stakeholder contributions and actions influenced a

species’ recovery goals.

Recovery Plan expenditures were reviewed to understand government stakeholder

spending and their impacts on the endangered species recovery efforts. Public

government documents were examined to determine the agency’s activity in the locality

of the endangered species. After comparing results from recovery goals, stakeholder

spending, and species population estimates the plan was determined either effective or

not and explained the impacts government stakeholders had on funding and

implementing a Species Recovery Plan.

8

3. Case Study

More than eighty mammal species were listed under the Endangered Species Act

as threatened or endangered, but the analysis focused on only three of these species. Of

the three species analyzed two were listed as endangered, Sonoran Pronghorn and Sierra

Nevada Bighorn Sheep, and the Louisiana Black Bear was listed as threatened. Each of

the mammals was a subspecies.

Several factors influenced the endangered species over the course of the analysis.

The main cause for the Sonoran Pronghorn and Louisiana Black Bear’s demise was

fragmentation of habitat from conversion of land to agriculture, livestock grazing,

development, and encroachment consequently leading to populations of less than 400

individuals. The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep was listed due to disease and parasites

transmitted from domestic sheep which caused the population to also decline to less than

400 individuals.

Overall, a variety of stakeholders implemented and funded each subspecies

recovery. The agencies involved took responsibility in different tasks defined in the

Species Recovery Plan and contributed funds to specific tasks they were responsible for.

During the course of the analysis each of the subspecies populations either stabilized or

increased implying that Recovery Plans were developed and executed appropriately.

9

3.1 Sonoran Pronghorn

3.1.1 Background

The Sonoran Pronghorn belongs to a family of North American mammals that

have all succumbed to extinction, except the Pronghorn. Endemic to the western portion

of North America the subspecies prefers vegetation consisting of creosote and white

bursage (USFWS and DOD, 2005). The highly adaptive Sonoran Pronghorn resides in

various ranges of climatic conditions throughout its distribution.

Fig. 1 Current and historic range of the Sonoran Pronghorn. The area in green represents the historic range of the species. The crosshatched section in Arizona depicts the current U.S. population, while the lighter cross hatched section illustrates the current range of the species in Mexico (USFWS, 2003).

Historically the species ranged from Nogales, Mexico to Yuma, Arizona, not in

extensive numbers, maybe a few thousand. Explorers observed several populations in the

open valleys of Southern Arizona and Northern Mexico. Unfortunately, at the present

time, Sonoran Pronghorn have been eradicated from almost their entire historic range. In

10

fact, the Pronghorn exists on less than eight percent of its previous distribution, roughly

2,750 square miles (USFWS, 2010).

The subspecies requires a vast area of desert scrub vegetation ecosystem to meet

annual survival and reproductive needs (USFWS, 2003). Biologists believe 200 square

miles of land can support up to 100 female Pronghorn. Luckily, enough space exists for

the Pronghorn, but the ecosystem no longer sustains the animal because of habitat

degradation from development and other negative factors.

Two other populations of Sonoran Pronghorn reside in Northern Mexico. One

population exists in the Pinacate Region of northwestern Sanora, and the other remains

on the Gulf of California west and south of Caborca, Sonora (USFWS, 2003).

Unfortunately, a washed out International Boundary fence, highways, and roads separate

the U.S. subpopulation from the two other populations. The human barriers resulted in

the inability for the subpopulations to interact with each other leading to less genetic

variation in the overall population.

The species range, in Arizona, almost completely encompasses federal lands

(USFWS, 2003). The largest portion of the range lies in Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife

Refuge (CPNWR), 41.6%. Second the Barry M. Goldwater Range contains 30% of the

species’ range. Roughly 12% of the population’s distribution resides in Organ Pipe

Cactus National Monument and the remaining ranges are managed by the Bureau of Land

Management, 4.4%, private landowners, 1.5%, and State Trust Lands, 1.2% (USFWS,

2010).

11

Reasons for Listing

More than any other anthropological activity livestock grazing affects Pronghorn

the most. When listing the species, habitat alteration (caused in part by grazing) was one

of the most significant factors in the species decline (USFWS, 2003). To offset the

difficulty USFWS determined that sensitive habitats needed: protection from excessive

grazing, land for conservation purposes, and grazing practices requiring changes to allow

for natural fire regimes (USFWS, 2011)

Invasion of invasive shrubs, anthropological barriers, and human caused fire

regimes all disrupt the natural processes of the remaining ecosystem. After careful review

of threats to the species the Recovery Team came to a conclusion (USFWS, 2003). To

eliminate the obstacle controlled burns and natural fire regimes were the best defense.

Controlled burning keeps invasive species at bay and reduces fuel loads (USFWS, 2003).

USFWS and partners contribute to the activity to keep the ecosystem as “natural” as

possible.

Furthermore, conversion of lands to agriculture, unsustainable livestock

management practices, and rural and urban development posed threats to the existence of

the Sonoran Pronghorn (USFWS, 2011). To avoid the complete loss of the species

USFWS mitigated habitat loss, protected vulnerable habitat from excessive grazing,

implemented management guidelines to reduce loss, and acquired land for conversion

easements to protect vital development sites. Although, the threat was not of great

concern it has become an increasing problem (USFWS, 2011).

Predation by large mammals and predatory birds presents another obstacle

Sonoran Pronghorn are confronted with. High predator numbers can significantly affect

12

the Pronghorn population. For most species predation is usually considered insignificant

for listing unless the population is small and vulnerable like the Sonoran Pronghorn

(USFWS, 2003).

In addition to habitat destruction and predation the Pronghorn recently dealt with

incredible variations in weather patterns. Seasonal changes varied significantly in the last

few decades. Winters have been mild, while summers continued to bake the desert in

drought. Research shows the recent weather activities may have caused drastic changes in

the population size of the Pronghorn reducing numbers by nearly 80% (USFWS, 2003).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated tactics to protect the species from

increasingly unstable weather patterns. Drought played a large role in the species loss so

biologists thought functioning riparian habitat was the best way to buffer drought and

would sufficiently recover the Pronghorn. This was one of the highest priorities on

USFWS agenda because of the 2001-2002 drought that almost wiped out the species

entirely (USFWS, 2011).

Last, illegal activities impacted the Pronghorn population at alarming rates. Along

the border, poaching, human hurdles, and construction negatively influence the

population. To offset harmful activity USFWS increased enforcement along the border to

implement illegal harvesting of the species and survey the range regularly (USFWS,

2003).

13

Graph 1. Sonoran Pronghorn population trend from 2000 to 2010. Blue line represents the Sonoran Pronghorn, the x-axis is the years, and y-axis is the population. The decline in population in 2002 was due to severe drought (USFWS, 2011).

Population Dynamics

The population remained around 100 individuals since the mid 1960s, by the

1990s it was closer to 200 but slowly dwindled. In 2000, the population lingered just

below 140 individuals. The winter of 2000-2001 brought heavier rains than usual making

for an ideal fawning season (USFWS and DOD, 2005). Unfortunately, the period of

revival for the Pronghorn was followed by the worst drought in decades in 2002

(USFWS, 2003).

2002 brought drastic changes to the species population dynamics and the

population declined over 70% to less than 25 individuals. The subspecies neared

extinction in 2002 thus biologists believed the solution for recovering the population was

to develop a captive breeding program and facility (Cohn, 2007).

Successful recovery efforts began to pay off in 2004 the Pronghorn population

more than doubled to around 70 individuals. In 2010, the population stabilized due to the

recovery efforts of various Federal and State agencies and remained around 100

individuals (USFWS, 2010).

14

Species Recovery Plan and Goals

On November 26, 2003 the Species Recovery Plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn’s

final draft was completed. The subspecies was given a priority rank of 3C by USFWS

meaning the degree of threat to the species was large, but the potential for recovering the

species was also high. The population suffered a large population decline in 2002 and

struggled to sustain their only U.S. population in southwestern Arizona (USFWS, 2003).

Several Federal and State agencies played a crucial role in the recovery of the Pronghorn,

and provided financial assistance to the survival of the critically endangered species.

Numerous factors influence the subspecies adversely, human barriers, variations

in climate, and habitat loss impacted the population most significantly; as a result

USFWS biologists managed the population through unique conservation strategies like

captive breeding. The captive breeding facility provides shelter to individual Sonoran

Pronghorn to develop and maintain a second population (USFWS, 2003).

Conclusion

To delist the species the Plan outlines two goals. In the short term, the population

must be estimated at 300 individuals and a second separate population must be

established. USFWS determined the best recovery action for the Pronghorn was

establishing a second population with a captive breeding and release facility (USFWS,

2003).

15

3.1.2 Analysis

For the analysis of the Sonoran Pronghorn priorities were outlined in the Plan in

order of importance. For example relocation was the priority of most importance and

research was the least according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects

concerning the species’ recovery under one of the five categories set forth by USFWS. A

spreadsheet displayed each project and was defined under the task description.

16

3.1.2.1 Priorities, Tasks, and Spending

Sonoran Pronghorn Priority Task Task Description Stakeholder Cost Estimates

Rel

ocat

ion

1.11 Viable population estimates ADGF $10,000.00

2.21 Evaluate reintroduction sites and techniques

ADGF, FWS $70,000.00

2.23 Public input into reintroduction ADGF, FWS $10,000.00 2.25 Legal aspects of reintroduction ADGF, BLM, FWS $100,000.00 2.32 Review captive techniques ADGF, FWS $100,000.00 2.33 Transplant holding requirements ADGF, FWS $100,000.00 2.34 Transplant protocol ADGF, FWS $100,000.00

Total: 7 $490,000.00

Hab

itat

1.1 Fawn recruitment USAF, USFWS, USMC

$30,000.00

1.2 Habitat enhancement USAF, USFWS, USMC

$150,000.00

1.3 Water investigation USAF, USFWS, USMC

$50,000.00

1.52 Investigate preferred habitat ADGF, BLM, FWS $50,000.00

Total: 4 $280,000.00

Dis

turb

ance

1.103

Notify refuge of fatalities USAF, USMC, NPS, BLM, ADGF, FWS

1.73 Long-term investigation of military effects on behavior

ADGF, USAF, USMC

$100,000.00

Total: 2 $100,000.00

Mon

itori

ng

3.1 Aerial surveys in U.S. and Mexico ADGF, NPS,

USAF, FWS, USMC

$10,000.00

3.4 Continue telemetry tracking and assessment of radio marking goals, including Mexico

ADGF $50,000.00

Total: 2 $60,000.00

Res

earc

h 1.9 Effects of disease and parasites; ADGF, USAF, FWS

$20,000.00

1.101 Update veterinarian contact FWS, ADGF $10,000.00

1.102 Materials for medical situations and specimen salvage

FWS, ADGF included in 1.101

Total: 3 $30,000.00

Total: 18 $960,000.00 Table 1. Chart defines priorities determined by the Sonoran Pronghorn Species Recovery Team. Five columns depict the priority, task number, task description, stakeholders, and estimated costs. Expenditure and task totals are illustrated in yellow (USFWS, 2003).

17

Chart 1. 2 Pie chart of priority expenditures in percentages. The chart key represents the various priority laid out in the Species Recovery Plan and illustrates priority percentages (USFWS, 2003).

Relocation

Relocation, the most important priority for Pronghorn recovery consisted of 51%

of the annual recovery budget (USFWS, 2003). A second population must be formed to

delist the species therefore; this was the main focus for recovering the Pronghorn. Some

tasks are explained in further detail because the chart does not provide enough

explanation.

Studies performed by agency researchers helped understand captive breeding

techniques associated with the species (USFWS, 2003). They also managed transplant

holding requirements and the funds for the requirements went towards meeting Federal

regulations for transporting an Endangered Species. Other expenditures included

transplant protocol for the project and public input for reintroduction (USFWS, 2003).

Roughly half a million dollars was estimated for the category, $490,000.00.

Expenditures varied from 2007 to 2010 because of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (this

18

will be explained in the stakeholder analysis). Government agencies accountable for this

category involved Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and Bureau of Land Management (USFWS, 2003).

Habitat

Priority two for the Sonoran Pronghorn recovery is habitat. The category

accounted for 29% of the recovery budget and the annual estimated costs for habitat was

$280,000.00 from 2007 to 2010 (USFWS, 2007).

Tasks found in this category pertain to conserving the ecosystem. Fawn

recruitment refers to a fawn surviving longer than six months. Habitat enhancement is a

process where generators pump water from underground wells to fill tanks to sustain life.

Another type of habitat enhancement places tanks in areas where runoff from rains can

fill them in an attempt to produce watering holes (Cohn, 2007). These small areas

replenish and sustain several species through severe drought.

Research shows enhancement plots; vital to the desert ecosystem frequented most

by Pronghorn contain more biodiversity. Seeds lying dormant for years begin to

germinate from Pronghorn activity and moisture (Cohn, 2007). The species’ activity

circulates the soil replenishing vital nutrients needed for plants to grow. Forage

enhancement plots develop, manage, preserve, supervise, and, adapt irrigated forage plots

as a way to sustain natural forage growth for Sonoran Pronghorn and other desert species

when drought ensues (Cohn, 2007).

The increase in spending for the category in 2008 and 2010 came from a large

capital contribution from Customs and Border Patrol to fund tasks for several years. The

U.S. Air Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Marine Corps, Arizona Department

19

of Game and Fish, and Bureau of Land Management all contributed time and energy to

the tasks and funding under habitat (USFWS, 2003).

Disturbance Reduction

Distribution reduction refers to reducing anthropologic barriers on the Sonoran

Pronghorn. One responsibility, stated in the Plan, was to notify authorities immediately

after discovering an injured or deceased Pronghorn (USFWS, 2003). Each agency

responsible for the subspecies recovery provided this service.

The Goldwater Range, in southeastern Arizona, stretches across extensive regions

of undeveloped wilderness several species residing in the area only come into contact

with military personnel, as their only human interaction. The military investigated long

term effects of their actions on Sonoran Pronghorn through various research studies

including: analyzing the effects of aircraft noise on Sonoran Pronghorn; influences of

night operations on the subspecies; and impacts of military doings on the Pronghorn.

Determining cost prompted difficulty because of 1.103 (notify refuge of

fatalities). The task is nearly impossible to determine because each stakeholder has a

different means of reporting the fatality. Costs are different for each individual case

stated. Each agency spent various amounts on the task under the priority depending on

land where the subspecies’ ranged. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, National Park

Service, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service all took part in specific tasks under disturbance reduction

(USFWS, 2003).

20

Monitoring

Monitoring received roughly 6% of the annual expenditures. Aerial and telemetry

surveys made up the majority of the spending. The U.S. Air Force (AF) surveyed Arizona

and Mexico regularly to evaluate population dynamics. The study gathered information

for fawn recruitment measures and population information (USFWS, 2003).

Monitoring costs were estimated to be around $60,000.00. Agencies

implementing this category included Arizona Game and Fish Department, National Park

Service, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Marine Corps

(USFWS, 2003).

Research

Research accounted for 3% of the recovery budget. Studies on disease and

parasite and their effects on the population were funded at the estimated cost of

$30,000.00. Responsible parties contributing to the category were Arizona Game and

Fish Department, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2003).

Conclusion

USFWS and partners produced and implemented the Sonoran Pronghorn

Recovery Plan based on five distinct categories. The categories that received most of the

funding was relocating individuals, and establishing a second population while research

received the least amount of funding. Overall, the priorities helped shape and determine

what is most important for saving the species.

3.1.2.2 Government Stakeholders

The distribution of the subspecies is immense and lies on lands managed by

several government agencies. Stakeholders overseeing land occupied by the Pronghorn

21

population took part in the implementation and recovery goals of the Recovery Plan.

Money was also provided for recovery by agencies that were negatively impacting the

subspecies. Overall, stakeholders contributed to the Pronghorn recovery because the

subspecies occurs on land managed or developed by them.

Chart 2. Pie chart represents Federal and State Government stakeholders and their contribution from 2007 through 2010 in percentages. Key represents government stakeholders from the largest contributor to the smallest for that year (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Department of Homeland Security

Dep

artm

ent

of H

omel

and

Secu

rity

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Customs and Border Protection 1,015,000 5,142,700 Total: 0.00 1,015,000.00 0.00 5,142,700.00 % of Total: 0% 46% 0% 88%

Table 3. Total spending from U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Department of Homeland Security from 2007 to 2010 on Sonoran Pronghorn recovery columns represent the Dept. and year while the rows illustrate total spending for that year and the percent against the total spending (USFWS, 2007-2011).

22

Customs and Border Protection

Although the Department of Homeland Security did not manage lands where

Sonoran Pronghorn resided their activities effected the Pronghorn population. The

activities of the stakeholder negatively impacted the subspecies because of their border

activities specifically building a fence and radio tower.

The flow of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers rose in recent years

concerning involved Pronghorn recovery stakeholders. Not only did the Pronghorn deal

with illegal activities from undocumented people but the actions of the US Border Patrol

responding to those events (Cohn, 2007). This further disturbed the already nervous,

fragile population and separated them from vital food and water sources.

The agency did not fund recovery in 2007, but they initiated several projects. One

project, a Biological Assessment, looked into field activity effects Border Patrol in Yuma

may have on Sonoran Pronghorn (USFWS, 2009). The Tucson Sector of the Border

Patrol required personnel to make an effort not to harm the subspecies while

apprehending undocumented people.

Additionally, the Border Patrol knew of the negative impacts their actions had on

Pronghorn habitat due to vehicle and helicopter traffic looking for drug activity (USFWS,

2008). The impacts were unknown at the time but the influences may be detrimental to

the Pronghorn population, therefore the agency paid a substantial amount for the

recovery.

Customs and Border Patrol contributed funds in 2008 and 2010. In the beginning

of 2008 the agency completed “Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed

Installation of 5.2 Miles of Primary Fence near Lukeville, Arizona - U.S. Border Patrol,

23

Tucson Sector, November 2007” (USFWS, 2007). The project stretched across Organ

Pipe Cactus National Monument, home of the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn.

Unfortunately, the fence drastically altered the species habitat because it cut through five

miles of pristine Pronghorn habitat in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (USFWS,

2008).

A Biological Opinion addressing all Border Patrol activities from 2000 continued

annual revisions through the analysis. A Biological Opinion refers to a “document stating

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) opinion as to whether a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat” (ExpertGlossary, 2012). The Opinion addressed ways the

Border Patrol could assist with conservation measures to reduce adverse effects that

happened over the decade (USFWS, 2008).

In 2008, the Border Patrol spent $1,015,000.00, 46% of the annual expenditures

for Pronghorn conservation. That year the Department installed a permanent vehicle

barrier along the western border of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (USFWS,

2006). The Biological Opinion stated the actions and effects the project could have on

Pronghorn.

Customs and Border Patrol explained measures it would take to reduce negative

activity on the range of the endangered species. For example, “…clean construction

equipment prior to entering OPCNM to minimize the spread and establishment of non-

native and invasive species…” to protect the endangered mammal (USFWS, 2009). The

agency took responsibility for their harmful impacts on the Pronghorn.

24

Moreover, the Opinion rendered the agency to fund USFWS for 10 years of water

for the Sonoran Pronghorn at an expense of $25,000.00 annually. The agency hoped by

doing that it may counter potential hazards that occurred. To offset negative Pronghorn

impacts the stakeholder provided roughly $382,000.00 to restore 84 acres of the species

range. The money was given to the Department of Interior to devise a plan on managing

fence activities. It was their responsibility to distribute the funds accordingly.

In 2009, the Border Patrol pledged that they would provide annual financial

assistance to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabrieza Prieta National Wildlife

Refuge, Barry M Goldwater Range, and the Bureau of Land Management because of

their irresponsible activities. The money went directly towards investigating the effects

illegal immigrants and smugglers have on Pronghorn and their habitat. Additionally, the

agency hoped to aid these agencies in habitat restoration and develop recovery actions for

the Pronghorn.

Activities continued in 2010 and the Border Patrol paid for 88% of the total

recovery of the Sonoran Pronghorn, over five million dollars. This year the agency

contributed to the majority of recovery due to their negative ongoing actions, vehicle

traffic, development, and various others (USFWS, 2010). Similarly to 2008 Customs and

Border Patrol supplied funds to the same recovery projects and goals.

A Biological Opinion to construct and maintain 5.2 miles of fence in the Organ

Pipe Cactus National Monument was developed. The Opinion described side effects of

the fence on the Pronghorn population and illustrated conservation measures to minimize

adverse effects on the population like cleaning their equipment prior to construction

projects around the subspecies (USFWS, 2008).

25

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a plan to implement

the SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project in the Ajo Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) of

USBP-Tucson Sector, Arizona which would affect the Pronghorn negatively. The project

resided in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the disturbance negatively affected

the surrounding ecosystem, as a result, the agency initiated plans for conservation

measures (USFWS, 2011).

The SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project is a tower with a comprehensive system of

sensor and communication technology. The tower enables Department of Homeland

Security to track illegal activities more easily and should minimize traffic in Pronghorn

habitat helping the subspecies long term (USBP, 2009).

Department of Interior requested Border Patrol to fund most of the recovery

because of how detrimental the projects were to remaining Sonoran Pronghorn

population. Estimates for costs to counter the damage came in a variety of forms. One

example was that before initial construction could begin Border Patrol would provide the

Department of the Interior with $200,000.00 (USBP, 2009). The project determined

illegal vehicle routes in Pronghorn habitat, as well as, map Pronghorn occurrences in the

area of development. The idea was to close roads frequented most by the subspecies

permanently (USFWS, 2011).

Additionally, the project provided Department of the Interior with $1,750,000.00

in funding to close and restore unauthorized vehicle routes. The action continued for two

years and DOI focused their efforts on roads that harmed Sonoran Pronghorn the most

(USBP, 2011). Each agency took responsible for choosing where restoration projects

would occur on the land they managed.

26

During the 2010 fawning season Border Patrol conducted weekly aerial surveys

through Arizona Department of Game and Fish, at a cost of $14,000.00 with additional

money funded the project for five more years (USFWS, 2011). In total, the agency gave

$346,000.00 to the Department of the Interior for purchasing radio collars, costs

associated with the collaring, and 100 tracking flights to conduct surveys (USBP, 2010).

Water tanks were also supplied for $60,000.00, $20,000.00 to provide

transportation of Pronghorn, and Border Patrol took responsibility for developing a

forage enhancement plot at $215,000.00. The agency expended $23,000.00 at Organ Pipe

Cactus National Monument to operate five emergency food and water plots for

Pronghorn over six months (USBP, 2009).

The other project that received large amounts of funding from Border Patrol was

to establish a second population. The agency dedicated $470,000.00 to the task.

Expenditures were associated with transportation of Pronghorn, fencing and pen

materials, and other expenses the recovery team encountered (USFWS, 2011).

The recovery plan for the Sonoran Pronghorn does not mention contributions

from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Their activities taking place from 2007 to

2010 impacted Pronghorn habitat, subsequently Customs and Border Patrol contributed

capital to several ongoing recovery activities.

Department of Defense

Dep

artm

ent o

f D

efen

se Year 2007 2008 2009 2010

Air Force 913,907 486,500 254,576 210,000 Marine Corps 50,000 75,000 72,000 70,000 Total: 963,907.00 561,500.00 326,576.00 280,000.00 % of Total: 76% 25% 30% 5%

Table 2. Agency expenditure from 2007 to 2010 for U.S. Air Force, and Marine Corps. The table illustrates the years and contributions for the recovery and the percentage of funds compared to the total spending for that year (USFWS, 2007-2011).

27

U.S. Air Force

Forty percent of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s distribution occupies the Barry M.

Goldwater Range. The U.S. Air Force managed the eastern half of the range where most

of the Pronghorn’s distribution occurs. The agency paid a large portion for the recovery

of the species and managed various projects outlined in the Plan.

The Department of Defense had concerns with its effects that hinder Pronghorn

recovery from military activities like live ordnance, chaff, and flares that were repeatedly

dropped on Pronghorn habitat by military aircraft. Barry M. Goldwater Range contains

three areas where Pronghorn occur. Military bombing targets on the range include: North

Tactical Range, South Tactical Range, and Range 1. Over the course of this analysis

researchers conducted studies to measure stresses on the Pronghorn induced because of

military missions. Military activities continue to kill Sonoran Pronghorn residing on the

Range one to two individuals a year, close to 1% of the population (Krausman, 2007).

The Air Force investigated the “…military use of the airspace above and the

ground space on BMGR-East and CPNWR…” near Luke Air Force Base (USAF, 6-6).

The project, Luke Air Force Base use of Ground-Surface and Airspace for Military

Training on the BMGR, damaged the surrounding environment. The ongoing process

resulted in the Air Force working off of old Biological Opinions to document their

impacts (USFWS, 2010). Overall, the project’s potential effects were not substantial

enough to harm Sonoran Pronghorn based on the agency’s data.

The Air Force analyzed and included the most up-to-date information into an

Opinion for BMGR Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. In short, the

Military Lands Withdrawal Act requires Secretaries from the Air Force, Navy, and

28

Interior to prepare a management plan for the Barry M. Goldwater Range for the purpose

of “…proper management and protection of the natural and cultural resources…” found

on the range (USFWS, 2010). The plan required an investigation of Sonoran Pronghorn

and its habitat.

Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site Expansion Project

(WAATS) was the last ongoing project by the Air Force. The Project is an educational

facility for military personnel helicopter training (USFWS, 2010). In 2007, WAATS

expanded on critical Pronghorn habitat. The agency wrote a Biological Opinion to

determine any detrimental effects on Pronghorns, costing upwards of six figures.

U.S. Air Force activities continued for the years analyzed. In 2007, the Air Force

spent $913,907.00 nearly 72% of the entire budget. USAF contributed to each of the

projects mentioned in the Priorities, Tasks, and Spending section of the thesis.

Expenditures dropped, in 2008, significantly to $486,500.00, roughly 22% of the total

because Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site concluded. 2009 spending

was $254,576.00, 24% because Opinions were not completed and expenditures in 2010

total 3.6%, $210,000.00, of the Pronghorn recovery budget (USFWS, 2011).

Marine Corps

The Marine Corps operated the western portion of BMGR. Sonoran Pronghorn

occur mostly in the eastern portion of the range; therefore the Marine Corps’

responsibility was minimal for the recovery. The agency assisted with several ongoing

projects defined in the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan for example habitat

enhancement, aerial surveys, and water investigation.

29

The Marine Corps improved a Biological Opinion for Marine Corps Air Station-

Yuma in the Arizona Portion of the Yuma training complex. The Biological Opinion

addressed actions the military took in the Eastern portion of the range (USFWS, 2010).

Over flights, ground-based activities, delivery targets, and other detrimental actions all

had the potential to harm the species therefore; the agency utilized funds for the Opinion.

The Opinion required Marine Corps to fund a scientific investigation where the project

occurred.

In 2007, the agency expended $50,000.00 on the recovery of the Sonoran

Pronghorn. In total this was roughly 3.9% of the annual budget. Activities included all

projects mentioned in the analysis. Spending in 2008 rose to $75,000.00, still 3.9% of the

annual expenditures. Funding for 2009 was 6.7% of the total budget, $72,000.00 and

$70,000.00 was dedicated to Sonoran Pronghorn recovery in 2010 from the Marine Corps

(USFWS, 2009).

State

Stat

e

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Arizona 225,000 247,300 389,500 282,000 Total: 225,000.00 247,300.00 389,500.00 282,000.00 % of Total 18% 11% 36% 5%

Table 5. The State of Arizona’s total expenditure for the Sonoran Pronghorn recovery from 2007 to 2010 representing the years analyzed, the agency, and the agency’s contribution for the overall recovery (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Arizona Department of Game and Fish

The State of Arizona funded several aspects of the recovery through the Arizona

Department of Game and Fish. State lands account for 1.2% of the Pronghorn’s range.

Arizona protected the species with specific tasks outlined in the recovery (USFWS,

2003).

30

In 2000, Congress created State Wildlife Grants “…to assist states with their

voluntary and proactive efforts to protect… wildlife species around the U.S. from

becoming endangered…” (AZGF, 2010). These funds conserve wildlife from further

population degradation and State funds for Pronghorn conservation come from the grants

(AZDFG, 2010).

In Arizona, funds from SWG were matched with State Heritage Funds and made

monitoring and managing populations easier because it eased some of the financial

stresses of the recovery. The Sonoran Pronghorn received its funding from both programs

which benefited the species greatly (Voyles, 2010).

In 2007, the State funded 18% of the recovery efforts, $225,000.00. Expenditures

were directed to the appropriate actions (USFWS, 2007). The following year Arizona

funded almost the same amount, $247,000.00. The percentage fell to 11% even though

more was spent (USFWS, 2008). This was because recovery expenditures nearly doubled

in 2008. Arizona spent $389,500.00 for the recovery efforts in 2009, 36% of the entire

budget. The most likely cause was because USFWS, Air Force, and State were the main

contributors that year dividing most of the recovery by three. 2010 expenses were less

than the year before at $282,000.00, 5% (USFWS, 2010). Expenses fell because of the

large funds given by U.S. Border Patrol.

31

Department of Interior

Dep

artm

ent o

f the

In

teri

or

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Bureau of Land Management 21,000 50,000 50,000 National Park Service 62,000 70,000 35,000 42,000 USFWS 265,000 270,000 49,193 U.S. Geological Survey 7,328 Total: 83,000.00 385,000.00 355,000.00 98,521.00 % of Total 7% 17% 33% 2%

Table 4. The Department of Interior expenses produced by Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, USFWS, and U.S. Geological Survey between 2007 and 2010. Each agency represents a total amount of spending and the percentage the department spent on recovery (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Bureau of Land Management

The Sonoran Pronghorn’s range falls on four percent of BLM land, therefore

BLM attributed small portions of their annual budget to the conservation of the

endangered species. One ongoing project BLM had on Pronghorn habitat was an off-road

vehicle use area. The agency followed up on past Biological Opinion adding new

information as it became available (USFWS, 2007). BLM managed the land and

regularly updated the Resource Management Plan.

Cattle grazing allotments run by BLM lie on Pronghorn territory, as well. The

Five Livestock Grazing Allotments Projects outside of Ajo, Arizona continued in 2007

(USFWS, 2007). One was on the Coyote Flats in the range of the endangered subspecies.

The BLM’s Biological Opinion states, “…no Sonoran Pronghorn have been observed in

or near the Coyote Flat since the 2002 Biological Opinion was issued” (USFWS, 5). The

final decision USFWS gave allowed grazing to continue.

In 2007, Bureau of Land Management spent $21,000.00 on Sonoran Pronghorn

recovery, 1.6%. BLM developed another Opinion addressing “…a proposed one time

deviation from the aforementioned conservation measures in order to allow a special

32

event (Unity Run) to occur on BLM lands” (USFWS, 3). In order to protect the species

BLM sent staff to drive the Unity Run route the day before the event to conduct a slow

speed survey (USFWS, 2007).

Furthermore, the agency promised to heavily monitor the area after the event on

March 15, 16, 2007. The Biological Opinion described other actions BLM took to protect

the Pronghorn while roads were reopened. Again USFWS allowed the event to take place

with limited concern (USFWS, 2007).

Similarly to 2007, 2008 did not change. Expenditures on Sonoran Pronghorn

recovery in 2008 were $50,000.00 (USFWS, 2008). The same projects took place during

that year with no special requests.

In 2008, BLM contributed 2.3% to the annual expenditure for Sonoran Pronghorn

recovery. 2009 BLM operations continued the same as the two previous years. Spending

remained at $50,000.00 but increased to 4.6% of the entire budget. BLM contributed

nothing to Sonoran Pronghorn recovery for 2010 (USFWS, 2010). There are several

reasons for the lack of funds, including other agencies contributions, or other extrinsic

factors.

National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) operates Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument

(OPCNM), 12% of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s habitat. The National Park Service was

responsible for providing a portion of funds to Pronghorn recovery.

In 2007, NPS spent nearly $62,000.00 accounting for almost five percent of the

annual Sonoran Pronghorn recovery budget (USFWS, 2007). Monument staff actively

worked with the Department of Homeland Security and other law agencies to minimize

33

the impact of their actions on Sonoran Pronghorn. The work included reporting the U.S.

Border Patrol of Pronghorn locations (USFWS, 2010).

Additionally, the National Park Service conducted aerial surveys in Arizona and

Mexico. This was part of an ongoing project since before 2004 and NPS monument staff

assisted with the biennial range wide surveys of Sonoran Pronghorn in the U.S. and

Mexico via helicopter (USNPS, 2010).

The National Park Service assisted USFWS and Arizona Department of Game

and Fish (ADGF) with Sonoran Pronghorn operations and continued development on

Sonoran Pronghorn Semi-Captive Breeding Facility (USNPS, 2010). The project resulted

in NPS funding $50,000.00 in 2007, 4.9%. The Captive Breeding program cost

$400,000.00 annually split between responsible agencies (Cohn, 2007).

In 2007 NPS took more measures to protect the Pronghorn and enforced that the

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument maintained a Pronghorn monitoring program,

with monitoring starting no later than March 1. In 2008, the agency funded aerial surveys

in Arizona and Mexico (USNPS, 2010). NPS expenditures rose to $70,000.00, 3.1% of

the total. NPS spending dropped by half in 2009 to $35,000.00, or 3.2% and rose in 2010

to $42,000.00 or 0.72% of the total budget (USFWS, 2011). The fluctuations in costs

could be contributed to several factors like agency funds, other contributions from

stakeholders, less projects, and other issues.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, USFWS) functions under Department of

Interior and managed the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR). The refuge

34

contains over 40% of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s habitat; therefore USFWS contributed

funds to recovery projects for the Pronghorn.

USFWS did not fund Sonoran Pronghorn recovery in 2007 because it was not in

charge of funding projects but managing them. In 2008, USFWS funded 1.2% of the total

Pronghorn recovery, $265,000.00 (USFWS, 2008). The spending was dedicated to all of

the projects listed in the analysis.

$270,000 was spent on the same projects, 25% of the entire budget in 2009

(USFWS, 2009). 2010 changed drastically expenditures dropped to $49,193.00 or less

than 1% of total funding because the large contribution of funds from U.S. Customs and

Border Patrol Projects USFWS participated in continued, but with much less economic

contributions (USFWS, 2010).

U.S. Geological Survey

Unlike most other federal agencies U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) did not take

part in the development of the Recovery Plan. In 2010, USGS spent $7,328.00

conducting research on the subspecies. The project analyzed and determined genetic

variability between captive and wild populations. The expected spending for the study

cost over $30,000.00, but in actuality 24% of the funds came from USGS (Villarreal,

2011).

3.1.3 Conclusion

Government stakeholders involved in Sonoran Pronghorn recovery planning

determined expenditure distribution for species recovery success. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service determined where most funds went, but each stakeholder took part in

35

implementing certain tasks. Priority/Category expenditure allocation was determined by

stakeholders involved in the creation and execution of the subspecies’ recovery plan.

Overall the focus of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan was to establish a

second population. The cost-effectiveness analysis illustrated of current projects, 2007 to

2010, 51% of costs went towards relocation. The Plan was implemented according to the

available resources from different stakeholders. Current conservation projects

implemented between 2007 and 2010 showed success in the recovery efforts.

Spending appeared skewed in 2008 and 2010, because of large payments provided

by Customs and Border Patrol. The agency provided large financial contributions to the

recovery efforts for current and future years. When funds were not influenced by the

agency’s large contributions actual spending resembled the estimated expenditures

closely, roughly one million dollars annually for Sonoran Pronghorn conservation. 2007

and 2009, years not influenced by the Customs and Border Patrol, reflected the Plan’s

estimated spending close to the actual.

Furthermore, the subspecies was ranked high on USFWS’ endangered species

priority list. Since the Pronghorn was vulnerable perhaps funds were allocated correctly

because of its priority ranking. Also, there were at least six major contributing

stakeholders between the years analyzed.

Stakeholders that managed land in the distribution of the population took part in

the implementation and recovery goals of the Recovery Plan. Destructive projects

developed by government stakeholders led to them contributing money to the recovery

efforts. In all, agencies managing land or constructing negative projects in the vicinity of

the endangered subspecies provided funds for the recovery.

36

In order to maintain the current population of Sonoran Pronghorn five categories

were determined: habitat, relocation, monitoring, research, and disturbance reduction.

The largest concern for the species was acquiring a second population. The analysis

found the majority of expenditures went towards this category from 2007 to 2010,

roughly 51% of funding. The data looks askew because of upfront payment in 2008 and

2010 from Customs and Border Protection. With the prioritization of needs the Plan was

successfully implemented and spending closely resembled recovery plan estimates.

37

3.2 Louisiana Black Bear

3.2.1 Background

The Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) is a subspecies of the

American Black Bear. Their historic range stretched across East Texas, Louisiana, and

Mississippi. Unfortunately the Bear has been eradicated to small pockets primarily in

Louisiana. The Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins contain the majority of the Bear

population roughly 75 individuals (USFWS, 2009).

These opportunistic mammals feed on a variety of seeds, fruits, and berries but

most commonly found in Bear’s diets are invertebrates consisting of worms, caterpillars,

and other insects. Additionally, the species can live up to 25 years in the wild depending

on food supply and physiological status (USFWS, 2009).

Fig. 2 Map of Louisiana illustrating Louisiana Black Bear’s range in Louisiana and the border of Mississippi. Areas of purple, blue, and brown represent the current Bear population, green depicts where officials are trying to establish another population, and yellow signifies corridors connecting the habitats (Corns, 2002).

38

The subspecies prefers basic needs food, water, shelter, and various denning sites

in a relatively large, unbroken piece of forest. Territories for the Bears range between 17

and 62 square miles. Their territory is determined by the season, sex, environmental

conditions, and the density of the overall Bear population (USFWS, 1995).

Louisiana Black Bear reside most commonly in the bottomland hardwood forests

of Louisiana but prefer other habitats like salt and freshwater marshes, canals, bayous,

and agricultural fields. The Bear occurs on the coastal plains of Louisiana, but most likely

the highest densities lived in the hardwood forest of Louisiana (Black Bear Conservation

Coalition, 2010).

The most vital part of Bear habitat is remoteness but for over a century humans

have fragmented Bear habitat with roads, clear cuts, and other barriers making

remoteness extremely difficult for the subspecies to obtain (USFWS, 2009). As an added

site specification Louisiana Black Bear need to be able to easily escape their encroached

fragmented ranges.

Reason for Listing

At one time numerous Black Bears ranged throughout the entire state of Louisiana

numbering in the thousands. Today there are between 300 and 400 individuals remaining.

Habitat fragmentation led to the listing of the Louisiana Black Bear in 1992.

Overutilization of the forest drastically reduced the quantity and quality of Bear habitat

because of development (USFWS, 1995). Consequently, the subspecies occurs on less

than 80% of its historical range.

Habitat degradation’s occurs because of agricultural practices like clearing and

grazing. Patchy habitat due to intense farming practices have fragmented the ecosystem

39

and now limit the subspecies’ population from growing. Immigration and emigration

increasingly has slowed because of fences, roads, canals, and other human barriers

(USFWS, 1995). Overall, the destruction of Bear habitat increases the mortality rate as

Bears are forced to go longer distances to forage, cross roads, and range on non-protected

sites throughout their range (USFWS, 2009).

Additionally, the Bear declined because of human caused mortalities like illegal

poaching. As the human population grows and expands into critical Bear habitat conflicts

rise. Vehicle accidents, poaching, and problem bear reduction activities all contributed to

the loss of the subspecies over the past few decades (USFWS, 2009). As development

made the species more accustomed to human food interactions between people and

Louisiana Black Bears increased drastically. The Bears associate large densities of

humans as a source to obtain food, creating nuisance Bears. Problem Bears are relocated

and in some cases the only alternative is captivity or euthanization (USFWS, 2009).

Increased human-bear conflicts led to poaching because Bear tolerance decreases

with every new incident. The negative activities contributed largest to the Bear’s demise.

As Louisiana Black Bear ranges become further fragmented human-bear conflict

increases and Bears rarely win (USFWS, 2009).

Species Recovery Plan and Goals

The Louisiana Black Bear was listed as threatened on January 7, 1992 and a

recovery plan was finalized on September 27, 1995. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

designated the priority for the subspecies a 9C. Meaning the degree of threat was

moderate, but the potential to recover the population was high.

40

The main goals of the recovery intended to increase habitat restoration projects,

obtain data to sustain all subpopulation, and connect each population through corridors

throughout their habitat (USFWS, 2009). Another primary goal of the Plan was

education. The recovery plan acknowledged that increasing public knowledge and

support leads to increased Bear populations because people become familiar with Bear

biology and behavior. Ultimately, the goal was to recover the species from threatened to

no longer needing Endangered Species Act protection (USFWS, 1995).

Conclusion

In order to delist the subspecies three criterions were required. First, two viable

subpopulations must be established in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins.

Additionally, corridors must be developed for immigration and emigration to occur

between subpopulations and last, each population’s habitat and corridors must be

conserved and protected from further fragmentation of the ecosystem (USFWS, 1995).

3.2.2 Analysis

The Louisiana Black Bear priorities were outlined in its Recovery Plan in order of

importance. Research was the priority of most importance and protection was the least

according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects regarding the species’

recovery under one of four categories set forth by USFWS. A spreadsheet displayed each

project and was defined under the task description.

41

3.2.2.1 Priorities, Tasks, and Spending

Louisiana Black Bear Priority Task Task Description Stakeholder Estimates

Res

earc

h 4.1 Develop population monitoring techniques

or indices. LDWF, FWS, USGS, USACE $200,000.00

4.2 Conduct population viability analysis. LDWF, FWS, USGS $87,600.00 4.3 Define viable subpopulation goals. LDWF, FWS, USGS part of 4.10 4.4 Evaluate population indices and goals. LDWF, FWS, USGS,

NDWFP $35,000.00

4.5 Develop corridor guidelines. LDWF, FWS part of 4.10, 4.20

4.6 Study Bear biology and limiting factors. LDWF, FWS, USGS, MDWFP part of 4.10, 4.20

Total: 6 $322,600.00

Hab

itat

1.1 Identify key recovery blocks and key corridors. FWS, TPW, NRC $65,000.00

1.2 Develop landowner protection of Bear habitat. LDWF, FWS part of 1.10

1.3 Enhance, restore, and manage Bear habitat.

NRC, FWS, TPW, LDWF, USACE, MDWFP part of 1.10

1.4 Develop, implement, and evaluate habitat restoration plan

LDWF, NRC, FWS, MDWFP, TPW $28,000.00

1.5 Protect habitat to support long-term survival of Bear populations.

LDWF, FWS, USACE, MDWFP, NRC $140,000.00

Total: 5 $233,000.00

Edu

catio

n

2.1 Disseminate Bear status, recovery, and management information.

LDWF, NRC, FWS, USACE, MDWFP, TPW $39,000.00

2.2 Reduce illegal killing through education. TPW, LDWF, FWS, MDWFP, LE, WS $59,000.00

2.3 Reduce human-bear conflict through education.

LDWF, FWS, WS, MWFP, LE, TPW $132,000.00

2.4 Identify Bear management incentives for private landowners and distribute.

LDWF, NRC, FWS, MDWFP, TPW part of 2.1

Total: 4 $230,000.00

Prot

ectio

n 3.1 Enforce legal protection of Bears. LDWF, FWS, WS, MDWFP, LE $50,000.00

3.2 Coordinate record keeping of Bear deaths. TPW, LDWF, FWS, WS, MDWFP, LE

used existing funds

3.3 Develop and implement road management guidelines. LDWF, FWS, USGS $7,039.00

Total: 3 $57,039.00 Total 18 $842,639.00 Table 6. Ongoing and current Priorities outlining tasks, task descriptions, responsible stakeholders, and estimated costs for the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Totals of expenditures and tasks are represented in yellow (USFWS, 1995).

42

Chart. 3 Pie Chart explaining expenditures per Priority in percentages. The key represents the various priorities from most concern to least concern (USFWS, 2007).

Research

Research accounted for the majority of the annual Species Recovery Plan with

spending at 38%. Research was conducted on different aspects of the Louisiana Black

Bear population. Population viability research, corridors in Bear habitat, and the biology

of the subspecies all required research to ensure a successful recovery (USFWS, 1995).

The main concern for this category was establishing population monitoring

techniques, determining population goals for the species, and studying its habitat and

biology. Little was known about Bear subpopulations; therefore studies examined Bear

corridors and implemented them into habitat management (USFWS, 1995).

Government stakeholders associated with the recovery goal included Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological

Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish,

and Parks.

43

Habitat

Habitat was the second category in the recovery plan for the Louisiana Black

Bear. Five tasks were assigned to this priority costing nearly 28% of the annual budget,

$233,000 (USFWS, 1995). Severely modified Bear habitat reduced suitable habitat by

80% in the 1980s. Fragmentation occurred through much of the environment causing a

reduction in habitat quality and quantity leading to a declining Bear population (USFWS,

1995). One goal of the Species Recovery Plan was to establish a metapopulation of two

or more viable subpopulation.

Corridors connect Bears among their fragmented ecosystems to insure long-term

habitat protection. The corridors allow Bears from different regions to interact with each

other varying the gene pool safely and without the problem of humans and human

barriers. A varied gene pool increases the health of the species because inbreeding

becomes rarer. Consequently, Bears reside on public and private lands and the Recovery

Team believed building strong, positive relationships with private landowners was vital

to the recovery efforts.

Agencies responsible for implementing and funding habitat included the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (USFWS, 1995).

Education

Education, the third category of the Recovery Plan costs 27% of the recovery to

develop and implement information and education programs for private landowners and

the public (USFWS, 1995). Habitat loss and human induced mortality were the leading

44

causes of Black Bear deaths during the analysis. With an understanding of recovery

actions and management practices the public supports and actively participates in Bear

recovery with the help of various stakeholders (USFWS, 1995).

Environmental education for hunters about consequences they may face if they

were to kill a Bear was vital for Bear conservation according to USFWS (USFWS, 1995).

The education program also reduced human-bear conflicts because of a contingency plan

for responding to problem Bears. Funding for education went primarily towards public

outreach and awareness about Louisiana Black Bears (USFWS, 1995).

Stakeholders responsible for executing the category consisted of Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks, Texas

Parks and Wildlife, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS, 1995).

Protection

Protection refers to defending and managing the remaining Louisiana Black Bear

population. The category defined how Bear habitat was managed as well as meeting

population goals. Road kill and poaching keep population goals from being reached

because the lack of enforcement. Three tasks designated under this priority cost 7% of the

annual recovery budget (USFWS, 1995).

Under the tasks, road management, guidelines referred to following certain factors

like the distribution and density of roads, road use, design, and management as a

guideline. The remaining tasks were associated with developing, monitoring, and

reviewing a management plan for each subpopulation. The Louisiana Department of

45

Wildlife and Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish and Parks, and Texas Parks and Wildlife all

took responsibility for funding and implementing the category (USFWS, 1995).

Conclusion

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other government stakeholders developed

and implemented the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan based on four different

priorities. The category that received most attention was research while protection

obtained the least amount of funding. Overall, the organization of priorities determined

the most threatening activities to the population.

3.2.2.2 Government Stakeholders

Eight government agencies coordinated together to execute and fund the

Louisiana Black Bear recovery. The Bear ranges across various lands managed by

different agencies in the area. The parties decided habitat reduction led to the demise of

the Louisiana Black Bear and is the largest threat to their existence. Over one third of the

expenses went towards research. Overall, the stakeholders implemented and provided

capital in cooperation with each other overseen by USFWS.

46

Chart 4. Years 2007-2010 illustrating government stakeholders expenditure participation for Louisiana Black Bear recovery. Each key represents the various agencies from the largest contributor to the smallest (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Department of Agriculture

Dep

artm

ent o

f A

gric

ultu

re

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 14,945 43,000 19,614 Forest Service 422,000 265,000 345,000 135,000 Natural Resources Conservation Service 844,200 807,657 898,900 600,750 Total: 1,281,145.00 1,072,657.00 1,286,900.00 755,364.00 % of Total: 72.67% 58.75% 61.96% 39.44%

Table 7. Agency expenses for Louisiana Black Bear recovery under the Department of Agriculture. The table illustrates the years analyzed in columns and the rows signify the agencies: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Services. Totals are depicted in yellow while blue shows the percentage of the total spending for that year (USFWS, 2007).

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) participated in the

development of the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Under the Department of

Agriculture lies APHIS which provides Wildlife Services (APHIS, 2006). Wildlife

47

Service’s protect threatened and endangered species by responding immediately to

problems a species causes. The main objective for the agency focused on enforcing

protection and developing community outreach programs in Louisiana (APHIS, 2006).

The agency responded to Bear complaints and for their efforts the public began to

have a better understanding of the subspecies (APHIS, 2006). Other aspects of protection

came from data collection addressing issues related to the Bear (USFWS, 2010).

The agency provided funds for the years analyzed except 2008 the reason can be

attributed to the large financial investment from Natural Resource Conservation Service.

Spending by the agency was less than 2% for each year, but Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service has been recognized for its work in Louisiana Black Bear conservation

(Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).

U.S. Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) did not participate in developing the Louisiana

Black Bear Recovery Plan, but contributed funds. The subspecies occurs across four

states in various National Forests managed by USFS. The agency contributed large

amounts of money for this reason.

Kisatchie the only National Forest in Louisiana holds some of the last remaining

Bear populations. Mississippi contains a small population of the subspecies which occur

in DeSoto National Forest. Lastly, Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma and Arkansas

maintain Bear habitat and people recently saw the subspecies in the forests (TPWD,

2005).

Small pockets of USFS land dot Black Bear habitat throughout their range

therefore the agency took responsibility for protecting it. Overall, USFS contributed

48

around 20% of the spending from 2007 to 2009 and then only 7% in 2010 (USFWS,

2010). That year the majority of the recovery was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey

and Natural Resource Conservation Service, therefore the agency contributed far less.

The stakeholder primarily focused their efforts on enhancing Bear habitat in National

Forests.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The U.S. Department of Agriculture manages Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) a major contributor in Bear recovery. The agency helped in the

development and execution of the Plan and focused much of their attention on habitat

restoration and protection for the remaining Louisiana Black Bear.

Natural Resources Conservation Service contributed to the recovery of the

subspecies through their Wetlands Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Program

(USFWS, 2009). In short, the programs are voluntary programs that offer incentives to

private landowners for preserving and restoring wetlands across the U.S. (King, 2006).

From 1993 to 2008 over 180,000 acres were restored to forestland through the program in

Louisiana for Bear habitat by Wetlands Reserve Program as a result the agency

conserved more than 138,000 acres of Bear habitat in Mississippi (Davidson, 2009).

Conservation Reserve Program restored over 200,000 acres in Louisiana and

roughly 328,000 acres in Mississippi from 1993 to 2008 (USFWS, 2009). The program

was intended to transform farmland into lands for conservation. When landowners enroll

it is their responsibility to make an attempt to restore habitat, and take measures to reduce

flooding for compensation (USFWS, 2010). Since the subspecies’ listing in 1992 over

831,000 acres of prime Bear habitat have enrolled in both programs in Louisiana and

49

Mississippi. Most recently, between 2008 and 2011 over 500 more acres were restored

and 1550 acres were improved in East Texas (Industrial Economics, Inc, 2009).

Natural Resources Conservation Services funded over 43% of the recovery efforts

from 2007 to 2009. In 2010, the agency contributed 31% of the expenditures (USFWS,

2010). In 2010, USGS paid almost half of the recovery costs, as a result other agencies

gave less. Overall, the agency dedicated most funds towards habitat restoration the

number one priority in the Recovery Plan. The Bear population increased since listed in

the early 1990s; therefore NRCS successfully utilized funds for recovering the subspecies

(Davidson, 2010).

Department of Interior

Dep

artm

ent o

f In

terio

r

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 National Park Service 3,075 4,800 3,200 USFWS 255,000 459,700 425,000 186,836 US Geological Survey 52,997 87,954 855,527 Total: 258,075.00 517,497.00 516,154.00 186,836.00 % of Total 14.64% 28.34% 24.85% 9.75%

Table 9. Agencies under the Department of Interior, National Park Service, USFWS, and U.S. Geological Survey, expenditures for Louisiana Black Bear recovery. Totals represented in yellow and blue signifies the percent of the total spending for the year (USFWS, 2007-2010).

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, USFWS) undertook many

responsibilities in the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan, and funded various tasks on a

state level. USFWS worked primarily with Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries to implement tasks in the Plan. Several National Wildlife Refuges exist

throughout the Bear’s range, so the agency oversaw conservation activities in those areas

(Industrial Economics, Inc, 2009).

The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge and Atchafalaya National Wildlife

Refuge are two refuges USFWS focused much of their attention on. Both have relatively

50

large (compared to other regions) Black Bear populations with about 75 individuals.

USFWS worked on population viability studies in both areas subpopulations in 2007.

Population estimates were completed in 2010 suggesting the Bear population increased

by roughly 50% (USFWS, 2011)

Habitat degradation contributed most to eliminating the subspecies, therefore

USFWS implemented Partners for Wildlife (West, 2005). Partners for Wildlife is an

incentive program through USFWS providing financial assistance to private landowners.

The program enhanced habitat on private lands and restored more than 10,000 acres of

prime Black Bear habitat since its beginnings (West, 2005).

In addition to funding and implementing reforestation projects USFWS

contributed capital to various research studies for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries and Black Bear Conservation Committee. Different universities received

funds from the stakeholder for research and most recently, USFWS worked with USDA

Wildlife Service’s providing resources for Bear conflict management programs for

community members (Industrial Economics, 2009).

USFWS coordinated with other stakeholders to develop a web-based Bear data

management system. The system tracked Bear sighting and mortalities throughout the

state and responsible agencies entered historical and current data into the system as

completion neared for the data management system (USFWS, 2011).

Overall, the stakeholder took responsibility for financing and applying tasks in

priorities, habitat and research. USFWS funded around 20% of the recovery from 2007 to

2009, but then only 7% in 2010 (USFWS, 2010). Again, U.S. Geological Survey

contributed a large percentage of capital to the recovery so USFWS provided less money.

51

USFWS led in managing the Louisiana Black Bear Recovery and the subspecies’

population increased. Due to the subspecies federal status USFWS made decisions within

the scope of the Recovery Plan.

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) took part developing and executing several

tasks outlined in the Plan and provided various resources. For example, the agency

contributed to the web-based management system and population viability studies from

2008 to 2010. The agency provided research for various demographic studies to evaluate

population trends. The surveys and study provided important information on Bear

population dynamics and potential habitat.

In 2009, the agency completed a study entitled “The Effects of Hurricanes Katrina

and Rita on Habitat of the Louisiana Black Bear” to model vital coastal habitat. The

research addressed the impacts both hurricanes had on Bear habitat and identified

potential Bear habitat along the Louisiana coast. The data determined potential corridors

coastal Bears could use to interact with other populations in the Atchafalaya River basin

(Davidson, 2010).

The following year USGS collared Bears in Louisiana as a way to collect data

using GPS tracking devices. Scientists from the agency collaborated with USFWS to

address priority research needs (Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010). The agency

focused their efforts on obtaining research and contributed large amounts of time and

financial incentives to researching the subspecies.

USGS took part in creating the Plan and designated funds each year analyzed

except in 2007 (USFWS, 2007). No studies were ongoing during that year and the large

52

funds from the Forest Service countered nonexistent funds from USGS. In 2008 and 2009

recovery funding fell below 5% and spiked to 45% in 2010, $855,527.00 (USFWS,

2010). The stakeholder contributed a substantial amount of capital to research studies on

the endangered subspecies paying for most of that recovery priority. The agency focused

much of its attention on researching potential and current habitat to minimize Bear loss

and maximize habitat in the region.

States: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas

Stat

e Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 LA, MS, and TX 126,622.00 210,650.00 107,118.00 22,700.00 % of Total 7.18% 11.54% 5.16% 1.19%

Table 10. Fund contributions from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas for Louisiana Black Bear Recovery. State totals were combined and cannot be represented independently. Yellow illustrates the totals and blue represents the percent for the total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010)

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

The remaining Black Bear populations reside mostly in Louisiana; therefore

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) led several recovery tasks. The

agency conducted research, provided protection, and restored Bear habitat and worked on

various conservation projects regarding Louisiana Black Bear while funding operations

according to the Plan.

The agency developed several studies addressing delisting criteria for Louisiana

Black Bear between the years examined. The study analyzed Bear DNA to better

understand Bear population dynamics. The DNA determined gene flow, taxonomy, and

populations sizes of the subspecies and researchers could identify individual Bears with

the research (Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).

Additionally, population viability analyses in 2007 determined Bear populations

in the Tensas River basin and Upper and Lower Atchafalaya basins increased. In 2010,

53

the agency collared Bears with GPS collars in Louisiana for studies. The agency focused

largely on research and habitat restoration (USFWS, 2011).

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries participated in the recovery

through education and public outreach. In 2009 LDWF increased public understanding of

the Bear through outreach workshops and public meetings. To reduce human-bear

conflicts the agency created a phone number and pamphlets for residents to report

nuisance Bears (USFWS, 2010).

The agency also helped private landowner with Bear management techniques and

dispersed information on managing incentives. LDWF implemented nuisance Bear

reduction strategies through community development projects. The agency took

responsibility for relocating problem Bears when detected (TPWD, 2005).

The agency successfully turned a nuisance species into a conservation

achievement because of its projects. The agency contributed with other states less than

7% in 2007 and 2008 (USFWS, 2008). In 2009, contributions lessen to 1%, and jumped

the highest in 2010 to 12%. State spending fluctuated depending on Bear actions in

Louisiana. Larger nuisance Bear populations increase the budget because of relocation

costs them changing percentages annually. LDWF contributed time to various tasks and

took responsibility overseeing tasks outlined in the Species Recovery Plan.

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks

The Louisiana Black Bear population expanded and increased in Mississippi

leaving the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) in charge

of managing the population in the state. The stakeholder took part in the creation and

implementation of the Plan and contributed to the education and research categories.

54

The agency focused most of its attention on education. For example, Bear

biologists gave over 40 presentations about the subspecies in the Mississippi region. A

large part of the conservation project consisted of public outreach (USFWS, 2011).

MDWFP hosted workshops, public speakers, and festivals to educate citizens about Bear

conservation to improve community-Bear relationships (USFWS, 2011).

Moreover, media offered information to the public through magazine and

newspaper articles and the agency put together a webpage for Bear conservation (Black

Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010). The site contained ecological and Bear management

articles, recent stories, video posts, and photos for people to familiarize themselves with

the endangered subspecies.

The other category the MDWFP invested in was research. Agency researchers

monitored 19 radio collared Bears throughout the state, and captured and collared new

Bears. Part of the research was conducting den checks. Den checks help biologist

estimate the breeding female populations to better understand the Bear. The agency

conducted the studies through 2009 to document birthrates of radio collared females

(Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 2010).

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Parks investigated movements and

habitat use of Louisiana Black Bear via GPS collaring in Mississippi. The study

examined human barriers that interfered with Bear movement and habitat degradation

from development (USFWS, 2011). The data provided biologists with new evidence that

the population increased in Mississippi.

Mississippi was one of only two states that provided state-funded compensation

programs. The program was run by the agency and was where contributions from the

55

state came from. MDWFP focused on public outreach and research and the Louisiana

population increased in the state since 2007 (USFWS, 2011).

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) supervised Louisiana Black Bears

in East Texas. The subspecies prefer habitat eastern Texas provides with oaks and other

mass producing trees. The agency produced the Plan and supported it through habitat

management, education, and research.

Texas was the other state that provided financial incentives to private landowners

willing to convert or preserve forest back to their natural state or as close as possible. In

2010, the agency and its partners created Land Conservation Priority Maps for East Texas

and developed a Hardwood Habitat Cooperative. The activity offered landowners funds

to restore or improve areas of hardwood on their lands. These efforts of habitat

restoration contributed to enhancing over 1,550 acres in East Texas (USFWS, 2011).

Louisiana Black Bear population research continued with TPWD support and

since 1977, the department conducted Louisiana Black Bear surveys and sightings in

eastern Texas. For example, the department directed field research to locate suitable Bear

habitat in Texas in an attempt to determine if Texas could sustain a Bear population

(TPWD, 2005).

Similarly to other stakeholders the agency provided workshops and other

community outreach projects to educate residents about the subspecies. Texas Parks and

Wildlife analyzed conflict management protocols and executed them where needed

(TPWD, 2005).

56

Overall, the agency contributed to the success of the subspecies throughout the

years analyzed. The stakeholder attributed most of their attention to habitat and research

categories. Programs provided incentives for habitat preservation and biologists obtained

research for Louisiana Black Bear population trends in Texas (USFWS, 1995). Overall,

the stakeholder managed Louisiana Black Bears in Texas and influenced the subspecies

success from 2007 to 2010.

Department of Defense

Dep

artm

ent

of D

efen

se Year 2007 2008 2009 2010

Army Corps of Engineers 94,140.00 12,900.00 147,400.00 85,475.00

% of Total: 5.34% 0.71% 7.10% 4.46% Table 8. Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers expenditures for 2007-2010 yellow shows the total funds contributed and blue illustrates the percent of total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010).

Army Corps of Engineers

The Department of Defense oversees the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) which

funded and assisted in developing the Recovery Plan for the subspecies. The stakeholder

managed lands where Louisiana Black Bear roam. In Louisiana, ACE manages the

Atchafalaya Basin a large expanse of contiguous forest.

In the Atchafalaya Reserve ACE manages the Atchafalaya Spillway Water

Diversion Project. The spillway is a major flood control area developed to divert the

Mississippi river north of New Orleans. The spillway created the Atchafalaya Basin

containing the endangered Bear. The project created a diverse and productive ecosystem

for many species to thrive since it began (USFWS, 2006).

Moreover, the agency managed the Yazoo Backwater Reformulation Project on

the lower end of the Mississippi. In summary, water has been trapped by a levee creating

57

back water thus the Army Corps of Engineers created a pumping plant to reduce

backwater in the Yazoo Backwater Area (USFWS, 2006).

Fortunately, most Bears occur on large areas of publicly owned land around the

Yazoo project, but private lands could potentially lose critical Bear habitat due to

mismanagement of the watershed. Residential lands could become submerged without

the pump destroying prime habitat for the subspecies (USFWS, 2006).

Habitat loss was the largest threat to the species and Army Corps of Engineer may

have contributed to the destruction from the pump activities. USFWS concluded the

relatively small project would probably not adversely affect the Bears but could

potentially. ACE countered the threat by providing financial assistance and energy to the

recovery and since 2001 the agency reforested over 2,000 acres on Corps lands

(TXPWD, 2005).

To avoid any committed harm to the subspecies the Army Corps of Engineers

planned to help reforest past and potential future wetland loses. The agency provided

conservation easements to eager landowner and reforested qualified lands (USFWS,

2006). Additionally, the stakeholder contributed funds for radio collar tracking devices

for the Black Bear. MDWFP received the funds and attached the collars to Bears in the

Delta National Forest and Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS, 2006).

Overall, the agency participated in a few projects in the recovery mostly dealing

with habitat conservation and public awareness. Army Corps of Engineers did not fund

much of the recovery budget because they managed a small portion of land and interfered

little with the subspecies’ reduction.

58

3.2.3 Conclusion

Government stakeholders that contributed to the Louisiana Black Bear recovery

plan determined fund allocation in the Plan, but USFWS had the overall say. Each

stakeholder played an important role in creating and executing the Recovery Plan for the

subspecies. Stakeholders determined the best way to increase the Bear population was

through research, education, habitat, and protection.

Stakeholders determined habitat reduction impacted the Louisiana Black Bear

most therefore focused on placing the majority of the funds towards research. More than

a third of the budget went towards that category. Stakeholders funded research projects

studying Bear populations, and other ways to counter the effects of human encroachment.

The budget analysis determined a successful utilization of funds. The main goal

of the recovery plan was to increase Black Bear populations, develop corridors, and

protect vital habitat. The population improved to roughly 350 individuals because of

projects defined in the Plan and each task placed the subspecies closer to the goals

outlined in the Plan for delisting.

Actual costs almost doubled what was estimated in the Plan from 2007 to 2010.

Costs were difficult to determine and estimates could have been less than anticipated.

One of the reasons costs were double comes from Natural Resource Conservation

Service. Their program converting and protecting wetland had overwhelming success

from landowner enrollment.

Land owners enrolled throughout the years studied thousands of acres.

Expenditures for every year except 2010 were over 40% for the stakeholder because of

the public’s overwhelming enrollment. Expenditures for the Wetlands Reserve Program

59

were not included in the Recovery Plan and could explain some of the discrepancy

between actual and estimated spending.

More than eight stakeholders were involved in implementing and funding the

Recovery Plan. That many stakeholders could explain why funding may have increased

during the analysis. Furthermore, the subspecies is one of the more charismatic

endangered species in the U.S. which may have something to do with expenditure

inconsistencies.

Overall, the subspecies plan led to an improving Louisiana Black Bear

population. A budgetary analysis revealed successful fund allocation according to the

plan. The supervising stakeholder was USFWS. Although, USFWS gave the Bear a

priority rating of a 9C, threatened but improving, it still received more funding than the

plan specified. Expenditure discrepancies could come in various forms like unaccounted

projects in the Species Recovery Plan increasing costs.

60

3.3 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

3.3.1 Background

Bighorn sheep in the western United States arrived over 600,000 years ago

from Siberia. The ungulates route crossed over the Bering land bridge and over thousands

of years subpopulations evolved. Bighorn sheep occupy a range from southern Canada to

Mexico (USFWS, 2007). One subspecies, the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, came under

recent threat due to disease from domestic livestock.

The subspecies lives exclusively in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range of

California. Portions of their range extend from Yosemite National Park in the north to

Sequoia National Park in the south. Fortunately, the species ranges almost entirely on

federally managed lands (USFWS, 2007).

Figure 3. Map illustrating Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep range in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range stretching through California and Nevada. The key depicts the current annual ranges of five herd units (USFWS, 2012).

61

The species survives due to its agility among the cliffs and efficient eyesight since

elevations within the range vary from 4,700 feet to over 13,000 feet (USFWS, 2007). The

Sheep prefer habitat encompassed with rocky slopes, and open woodlands. Within the

Sheep’s range occur wide distributions of vegetation. The lowest elevations hide the

sagebrush-bitterbrush-bunchgrass scrub, as the elevation increases the vegetation

becomes pinyon-juniper woodland and mountain mahogany scrub. At mid-elevation

subalpine forests, woodlands, and meadows begin to appear and last, in the highest places

of their range lie vast alpine meadows and other alpine habitats (USFWS, 2007).

Historically herds existed throughout the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from the

Sonora Pass to Olancha Peak. Researchers never determined how large the population

ever exceeded, but believed it contained more than 1,000 individuals (USFWS, 2007).

Today’s population looks drastically different. The species occurs in only two areas of its

former range in small, fragmented populations. Habitat occupied by the Sheep was

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land

Management between 2007 and 2010 (USFWS, 2007).

Population Dynamics

The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep population never appeared in extensive

numbers, but could be found in few herds a few thousand individuals. In the late 1970s

the population lingered around 250 individuals and by 1985 the population grew to 300.

The Bighorn seemed stable due to recovery efforts, and a reintroduction program, but in

1995 the population declined to around 100 individuals because of an unseasonably cold

winter (USFWS, 2007).

62

The winter of 1995 brought difficultly because it was unusually cold, and the

subspecies headed to higher ground. Higher grounds meant colder weather and many

could not survive the temperatures. Numbers have increased since the decline in 1995,

and the population rose to over 122 in 1999 (USFWS, 2007). Designated recovery

actions helped the population slowly recovery to around 400 individuals by 2011 (CDFG,

2011).

Reasons for Listing

Disease played the largest role in the decline of the subspecies. Domestic Sheep

carry virulent diseases which transfer to Bighorn Sheep populations in the Sierra Nevada.

The most significant threat to the species was pneumonia, caused by Pasteurella, or in

combination of other pathogens. Disease within the domestic and wild Sheep population

were nearly impossible for researchers to collect and examine because infected animals

show little signs of sickness until they die (USFWS, 2007).

Beginning in the 1870s diseases carried by domestic Sheep played a large role in

the demise of the subspecies. Management techniques were implemented by the

Recovery Team and now domestic grazing only occurs adjacent to the Sierra Nevada

Bighorn Sheep. The major risk of transfer occurs when a domestic Sheep strays into

Bighorn habitat or vice versa (USFWS, 2007).

Since the late 1970s mountain lion have accounted for some of the Sheep’s

decline bringing concern to wildlife biologists. Winter ranges of the subspecies leaves

them most vulnerable from attacks by puma therefore; mountain lion with a taste for

Bighorn are removed and relocated to protect the Sheep (USFWS, 2007). Since the

63

population was so low each individual loss is immense to the overall population even

though few have been taken by puma.

Species Recovery Plan and Priorities

On April 20, 1999 the species was listed as Endangered under the Endangered

Species Act. The Species Recovery Plan followed and was finished on September 24,

2007. USFWS ranked the subspecies a 3C on their recovery priority rank system

(USFWS, 2007). This means there is a high degree of threat, but the potential to recover

is also high. Various agencies took part in implementing and funding the recovery plan

and stakeholders played a crucial role in the survival of the species because of their

financial aid and efforts (USFWS, 2007).

The main goals of the subspecies’ recovery were to manage the species to a self-

sustaining population size and increase their geographic range. The plan called for

maintaining long-term viability through different programs and techniques that will

ensure the delisting of the species. The main priority focus for the recovery plan was

increasing the population to a healthy size (USFWS, 2007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, to delist the species requires a minimum of 350 adult females and

herds need to be monitored with at least three censuses. Twelve herds must be formed

and land management and techniques must provide long term protection to the species.

The first priority for the recovery was to translocate “Bighorn Sheep into unoccupied

herd units that are needed for recovery, or to aid in the recovery of occupied herds

(USFWS, 47).” USFWS believed this will vary the gene pool and increase the breeding

population.

64

3.3.2 Analysis

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep priorities were illustrated in its Recovery Plan in

order of importance. Increasing the population was the priority of most importance and

research was the least according to the Recovery Team. Tasks were defined as projects

regarding the species’ recovery under one of five categories set forth by USFWS. A

spreadsheet displayed each project and was defined under the task description.

3.3.2.1 Priorities, Tasks, and Spending

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Priority Task Task Description Stakeholder Cost Estimate

Popu

latio

n In

crea

se

2.1

Prepare and implement a management plan to temporarily protect Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep herds from predation losses, where needed, until viable herd sizes are reached.

CDFG

$350,000.00

2.2.1 Reduce potential predator influences on winter habitat selection where appropriate

CDFG $40,000.00

2.3.1 Prevent contact between Bighorn Sheep and domestic Sheep or goats

FS, FWS, BLM, CDFG $7,500.00

2.2.3 Enhance Bighorn Sheep winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate

FS, NPS, CDFG $30,000.00

2.3.2 Develop an action plan in the event that a pneumonia outbreak occurs

CDFG $10,000.00

2.4

Manage human use locally where it is found to cause Bighorn Sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby, compromises survivorship or reproductive success

FS, NPS, FWS, CDFG

$1,000.00

3.1 Develop and implement a strategy for translocations

FS, NPS, FWS, CDFG $30,000.00

3.2.1 Manage wild herds as sources of stock CDFG part of other Total: 8 $468,500.00

Mon

itori

ng

5.2 Monitor key predators in the vicinity of winter ranges

CDFG $10,000.00

5.1 Develop and implement a monitoring plan for population abundance and distribution of Bighorn Sheep herds in the Sierra Nevada

CDFG

$200,000.00 5.4 Monitor exposure to disease organisms of concern CDFG $3,750.00

5.3 Monitor vegetation structure and composition changes likely to affect Bighorn Sheep population parameters.

FS, NPS, CDFG

$10,000.00 Total: 5 $223,750.00

Hab

itat

1.2 Maintain and/or enhance integrity of Bighorn Sheep habitat

NPS, FS, FWS, CDFG

$149,000.00

65

Total: 1 $149,000.00

Rec

over

y T

eam

8 Establish an implementation advisory team for coordination and communication

CDFG, FWS, FS, BLM, NPS

$1,000.00 Total: 1 $1,000.00

Res

earc

h

6.2 Develop a population viability analysis (PVA) for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

CDFG $50,000.00

6.3 Further investigate habitat use patterns of Bighorn Sheep herds

CDFG $10,000.00

6.4 Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative to habitat use patterns of Bighorn Sheep

FS, NPS, CDFG $5,000.00

6.6 Investigate future reintroduction sites relative to potential predator and domestic Sheep problems and other potential conflicts

FS, NPS, CDFG

$10,000.00

6.8 Attempt to develop long term data that will help elucidate predator-prey dynamics of this ecosystem as they affect Bighorn Sheep

FS, NPS, CDFG

$80,000.00 Total: 5 $155,000.00 Total: 19 $997,250.00 Table 11. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Priority categories including tasks, task descriptions, responsible stakeholders, and estimated costs (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Chart 5. Pie chart illustrating expenditures per priority by percentage. The key depicts the five priorities outlined in the Species Recovery Plan in order of importance (USFWS, 2007).

66

Population Increase

Population increase, category one, regards measures taken to enhance the

survivorship of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Eight tasks reside under the category

and the total estimated costs were approximately $468,500.00 (USFWS, 2007). Until

herd sizes stabilize a management plan was created to protect the sheep from predation

and disease.

The sheep population can catch diseases from domestic sheep which can

dramatically alter the population. Pneumonia outbreaks are potentially most harmful;

therefore an action plan was developed with an emphasis on increasing the population

through various conservation tasks. Disease was the number one cause for the species

demise (USFWS, 2007).

Human barriers, like fences, keep Sheep from roaming vital habitat within their

range. Therefore, important areas for the bighorn that received large amounts of human

activity were located and closed. Additionally, the population became fragmented and as

a result USFWS developed strategies for relocating the subspecies to produce additional

herds. Translocating refers to taking a bighorn sheep from one area and moving it to

another place in an attempt to establish another herd (USFWS, 2007).

Moreover, project costs for tasks can never be certain, and expenditures differ

drastically. The species implementation was frequently updated and provided ongoing

and current projects for each year of the study. 47% of the costs on current projects

attributed to increasing the population (USFWS, 2007).

Funding and responsibilities for costs under this category came from Federal and

State Government Agencies. Accountable stakeholders included: California Department

67

of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,

National Park Service, and Forest Service. Each party either contributed funds under the

category, provided other means of support, or both (USFWS, 2007).

In conclusion, expenditures for increasing the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep

population used nearly half of the annual recovery budget yet, the percentage of funding

stayed the same each year. Researchers believed increasing the population was the most

efficient way to bring the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep back from the brink of

extinction. The recovery team dedicated time and costs to monitoring predator

populations, researching disease, and relocating individuals.

Monitoring

The second category, monitoring, made up 22% of the annual recovery budget.

There were five tasks dedicated to sheep monitoring costing over $223,750.00 (USFWS,

2007). Population status and trends, sheep habitat, and threats to the subspecies made up

projects outlined under the monitoring priority.

Stakeholders watched predators, like puma, ranging in the locality of the

subspecies because of the potential threat they have on the sheep. The predator

contributing the most to the decline of the species is the mountain lion. Predation is not

usually a contributing factor when listing a species, but since the bighorn population was

small each loss dramatically effects the remaining population (USFWS, 2007).

In recent years vegetation succession penetrated bighorn habitat, because natural

fire regimes no longer exist. Fires burn off any invasive species in the ecosystem that

outcompete endemic species, unfortunately this no longer occurs regularly because of the

weather variations and human interferences. Agencies conducted studies monitoring the

68

makeup and structure of the vegetation where likely effects of succession appeared to

increase vegetation to better understand Sheep habitat (USFWS, 2007).

Monitoring consisted of 22% of the expected spending outlined in the SRP,

$223,750.00. Agencies contributing to the category included: California Department of

Fish and Game, Forest Service, and National Park Service. CDFG maintained the most

responsibility in regards to monitoring (USFWS, 2007).

Research

The final portion of the recovery plan covered current and relevant research. Little

was known about Bighorn Sheep habitat; therefore the ecosystem required further

investigation. Biologist worked in the field surveying suitable habitat for the subspecies

and other studies focused on future relocation sites with regards to predators and

domestic livestock (USFWS, 2007).

Overall, research comprised 16% of the recovery costing $155,000.00. There

were five tasks under the priority. Little was known about this subspecies; therefore most

research projects focused on the species range and population. Government stakeholders

backing the priority consisted of California Department of Fish and Game, Forest

Service, and National Park Service. The agency’s individual tasks were outlined in the

SRP (USFWS, 2007).

Habitat

Habitat the forth category focused on for the recovery of the bighorn. Fifteen

percent of the annual budget went towards this priority. The operation cost roughly

$149,000.00 and the only task designated under the category was preserving or enriching

Bighorn Sheep habitat.

69

USFWS felt that in order to increase the population the subspecies habitat needed

protection. Responsible parties for implementing and contributing capital involved the

National Park Service, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California

Department of Fish and Game. Each stakeholder took responsibility for providing

USFWSs outlined in the SRP (USFWS, 2007).

Recovery Team

The Recovery Team assumes less than 1% of the annual recovery budget and

received $1,000.00 for one task at hand, coordinating a cooperative advisory team to

oversee the Bighorn projects. Stakeholders range from Federal and State agencies to

private organizations and require effective team work to implement a successful plan.

This category was far less than 1% of the annual budget; therefore the report did not

analyze it (USFWS, 2007).

Conclusion

USFWS and other agencies assisted in the creation and execution of the Sierra

Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan based on five distinct priorities. Diseased,

predation, and changing weather patterns have all lead to the demise of the subspecies.

The category that received most attention was to increase the population while the least

amount of funds went towards the Recovery Team. Overall, the organization of priorities

resulted in explaining the highest degree of threat to the subspecies.

3.3.2.2 Government Stakeholders

The highest degree of threat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep came primarily

from disease. The subspecies ranges across land primarily managed by USFWS and other

government agencies. Consequently, three to four main government agencies paid

70

expenses during the years analyzed leading to decreased spending planned in the

Recovery Plan.

Chart 6. Four pie charts signifying stakeholder contributions for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery spending percentages, 2007-2010. Each chart is a year analyzed and the key illustrates the contributing stakeholders in order of most concern (USFWS, 2007-2010).

Department of Interior

Table 14. Department of Interior’s agencies, BLM, National Park Service, USFWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey, spending on Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery from 2007-2010. Yellow illustrates the totals and blue shows the percentage of total spending for the year represented by column (USFWS, 2007-2011).

Dep

artm

ent o

f the

In

terio

r

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 BLM 4,500 25,000 34,500 National Park Service 2,500 3,700 5,800 165,600 USFWS 550,976 247,798 188,979 82,379 U.S. Geological Survey 42,350 90,000

Total: 557,976.00 318,848.00 194,779.0

0 372,479.00 % of Total 96% 87% 87% 85%

71

Bureau of Land Management

Domestic sheep grazing allotments BLM manages were found in a few places on

the subspecies’ range. BLM managed lands on the bighorn sheep’s range and supervised

one project in the Plan, 2.3.1 (Prevent contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep

or goats), for each year of the study.

The main focus of the agency was to prevent domestic sheep from coming into

contact with Bighorn Sheep. Each allotment the agency managed increased the chances

of disease spreading to the subspecies (BLM, 2011). The potentially negative impacts

made the stakeholder a contributor to the species recovery each year except 2009 because

funds were directed from other stakeholders.

Bureau of Land Management contributed to funding every year of the study

except 2009 because USFWS funded almost the entire recovery leaving other agencies to

pay far less. The agency funded less than 8% of the species recovery, but this was

because it managed little land where the subspecies occurred (USFWS, 2010).

National Park Service

The National Park Service (the Park Service, NPS) managed habitat for the Sierra

Nevada Bighorn Sheep because the subspecies ranged in various areas of National Park

lands. Kings Canyon National Park, Sequoia National Park, and Yosemite National Park

all harbor herds of the endangered subspecies therefore, USFWS sent biologists from all

three national parks to take part in the preparation of the recovery plan.

The Park Service led projects 2.2.3 (Enhance bighorn sheep winter range habitat

to increase visibility where appropriate), and 2.4 (Manage human use locally where it is

found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby, compromises

72

survivorship or reproductive success) for category 1, population increase. NPS also was

responsible for 5.3 (Monitor vegetation structure and composition changes likely to affect

bighorn sheep population parameters) under priority two and 1.2 (Maintain and/or

enhance integrity of bighorn sheep habitat) for habitat (USFWS, 2007). The stakeholder’s

main focus was to provide land for the sheep to roam and reestablish a population in the

Great Western Divide part of Sequoia National Park.

Sheep occur on various areas of the Park Service managed land thus, the agency

contributed to the annual recovery. In October 2010 NPS prepared a study on Sierra

Nevada Bighorn Sheep in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park. The project

undertaken by the stakeholder included: capturing and radio collaring sheep, as well as

attaching GPS devices on the subspecies found in Sequoia National Park. The actions

promoted the well-being of the population and the Park Service used the data to create a

model for managing the subspecies and understand migration patterns.

In conclusion, the Park Service contributed less than 3% of the funds from 2007

to 2009 and nearly 38% in 2010 (SKCNP, 2011). The reason for the increase was

because of studies produced in 2010. The subspecies ranged on various patches of

National Park Service lands, so the agency contributed time and expenditures to the

species recovery. The stakeholder focused primarily on the first three priorities, and the

population of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep increased.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took part in funding and implementing several

projects, but did not lead any projects for the SRP. The agency undertook the most tasks,

73

updated current research, and devised new ways of managing the subspecies’ population

(USFWS, 2007).

The percentage of funds USFWS placed into the recovery varied throughout the

years examined. USFWS contributed 95% of the funds for 2007 (USFWS, 2007). The

following year the percentage dropped to 68%, increased to 85% in 2009, and ended at

19% in 2010. USFWS funded the majority of the projects until 2010 (USFWS, 2010).

This year the National Park Service contributed what FWS could not.

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) did not participate in the creation of the

Bighorn Recovery Plan. The agency produced studies regarding the population which

was attributed to spending in 2008 and 2010. USGS contributed 11% of total recovery in

2008, and 20% in 2010 because of research studies conducted with the subspecies

(USFWS, 2010). Each study required different amounts of funding.

Department of Agriculture

Dep

artm

ent o

f A

gric

ultu

re

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 200 Forest Service 28,000 64,000 Natural Resources Conservation Service 140

Total: 140.00 0.00 28,200.00 64,000.00 % of Total: 0.0241% 0.0000% 12% 14%

Table 12. The Department of Agriculture’s expenditures for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery between 2007 and 2010. Agencies contributing funds are Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service represented by rows. Columns illustrate each year and the total spending in yellow and blue represents the percentage of total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010).

74

U.S. Forest Service

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep occur on various areas managed by the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS). Today’s population mainly inhabits Inyo National Forest, yet some

individuals occur in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. From the time the

subspecies was listed in 1999 USFS worked with USFWS on various actions outlined in

the Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2007).

The Forest Service led population increase projects 2.3.1 (Prevent contact

between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats), 2.2.3 (Enhance bighorn sheep

winter range habitat to increase visibility where appropriate), and 2.4 (Manage human use

locally where it is found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and, thereby,

compromises survivorship and/or reproductive success). The agency also led task 5.3

under Monitoring, and 1.2 (Maintain and/or enhance integrity of Bighorn Sheep habitat)

for the Sheep’s habitat. The main goals of the agency was to restore the subspecies

population to their historic range, increase the population to allow for down listing or

delisting to occur, and provide community support through education and awareness

regarding sheep (USFWS, 2007).

The stakeholder participated in the species recovery because of grazing permits

they managed for domestic sheep in close proximity to the wild population. USFS used

helicopters, which disrupt the subspecies, to conduct forest surveys for land mapping

(USFWS, 2011).

Additionally, prescribed and fire suppression activities and permits for public use

of the forest all negatively impacted the remaining Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep during

the years analyzed. The Forest Service acknowledged their impacts on the subspecies and

75

contributed funds. The agency monitored domestic grazing allotments throughout the

range of the subspecies because the threat of disease increased near these allotments and

could wipe out an entire herd of Bighorn from disease (USFWS, 2011).

Although, USFS did not contribute funds in years 2007-2008 the agency led

certain projects and participated in others they were responsible for outlined in the

Recovery Plan. In 2009, the agency funded recovery efforts because of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) regarding Motorized Travel Management (USDA, 2009).

The agency created an EIS to reexamine an old rule and improve vehicle use in

Inyo National Forest for multiple management and recreational reasons (Upchurch,

2009). USFWS determined little concern with disturbing the Sierra Nevada Bighorn

Sheep, but because of the risk USFS contributed to the recovery in 2009 and the project

continued through 2010.

Overall, most of the Forest Service’s spending went towards enhancing Bighorn

Sheep habitat. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep occur in three National Forest managed by

USFS, therefore the stakeholder took responsible for executing several tasks under the

various categories (USFWS, 2007). The agency activity in 2009 and 2010 negatively

impacted the subspecies because of grazing allotments, but the agency took precautions

not to cause harm and provided funds.

76

Department of Transportation

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tr

ansp

orta

tion Year 2007 2008 2009 2010

Federal Aviation Administration 24,000 48,000 Total: 24,000.00 48,000.00 0% 0.00 % of Total: 4% 13% 0% 0%

Table 13. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration expenditures for Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep recovery from 2007 to 2010. Yellow depicts total expenditures for the year and blue shows the percentage of total spending (USFWS, 2007-2010).

Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not take part in creating or

implementing the SRP, yet the agency contributed to the expenditures in 2007 and 2008.

The FAA managed the western portion of the R2508 Complex which overlaps the Sierra

Nevada Range. The portion of the Complex affecting the sheep is Edwards Air Force

Base (Brown, 2009).

The base contains ecosystems vital to the Bighorn’s recovery meadows, marshes,

and water sources, crucial habitat designated for the survival of the subspecies.

Threatened and endangered species resided in the Complex, but the Sierra Nevada

Bighorn Sheep was not a species of much concern because it is rarely seen near the

Complex (Brown, 2009).

Occasionally, sheep can be spotted in the valleys of the Complex and for that

reason the agency expended funds to the recovery. The stakeholder impacted the species

negatively because of various military activities. Actions included ground operations,

flight activity, and weapons missions all potentially harming the endangered subspecies

(Brown, 2009).

The stakeholder took responsibility for contributing four percent in 2007 and

thirteen percent of funds in 2008. The reason the agency paid for the recovery was

77

because of their activities in the vicinity of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Federal

Aviation Administration did not pay in 2009 or 2010 because USFWS felt the subspecies

was affected little by the agency’s activities.

State

California Department of Fish and Game

The State did not contribute funds to recovery efforts for the years studied, yet the

agency led several parts of the recovery. The stakeholder took responsibility for

implementing task 2.1 (Prepare and implement a management plan to temporarily protect

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep herds from predation losses, where needed, until viable

herd sizes are reached.), 2.2.1 (Reduce potential predator influences on), 3.2.1 (Manage

wild herds as sources of stock), and 2.3.2 (Develop an action plan in the event that a

pneumonia outbreak occurs) under category one (USFWS, 2007). Tasks, under

monitoring, led by the agency were 5.2 (Monitor key predators in the vicinity of winter

ranges), 5.1 (Develop and implement a monitoring plan for population abundance and

distribution of Bighorn Sheep herds in the Sierra Nevada), and 5.4 (Monitor exposure to

disease organisms of concern) (USFWS, 2007).

The state agency headed the Recovery Team project and lastly, under the

research priority the stakeholder managed tasks 6.2 (Develop a population viability

analysis (PVA) for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep), 6.3 (Further investigate habitat use

patterns of bighorn sheep herds), 6.4 (Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative

to habitat use patterns of Bighorn Sheep), 6.6 (Investigate future reintroduction sites

relative to potential predator and domestic sheep problems and other potential conflicts),

78

and 6.8 (Attempt to develop long term data that will help elucidate predator-prey

dynamics of this ecosystem as they affect Bighorn Sheep) (USFWS, 2007).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) managed the recovery as a

whole. With its role the agency worked with other federal, state, and private stakeholders

to continue sustainable conservation practices and aid in the recovery of species

threatened with extinction on their lands. CDFG focused primarily on supporting the

region for the long-term viability of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep population (CDFG,

2011).

3.3.3 Conclusion

Government stakeholders involved in Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery

Plan determined fund allocation for species recovery success. Priority expenditure

distribution was determined by stakeholders in the subspecies recovery plan and USFWS

determined where funds were distributed. Agencies involved with recovery projects saw

their funds implemented to the correct tasks in the Recovery Plan. Representatives from

almost every agency participated in developing the SRP and determined the priority that

would be focused on most was increasing the population.

The recovery team defined priorities as: population increase, monitoring, habitat,

recovery team, and research. Tasks and cost estimates were examined for each priority to

determine the significance each had against others. Increasing the population was the

main focus of the recovery goals and USFWS and partners focused much of their

attention on this priority.

As of 2011, the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep had a high degree of threat

primarily from disease. Fortunately, USFWS set a high potential for recovering the

79

subspecies. Although, the sheep has one of the highest priorities set forth by USFWS it

was underfunded by comparing actual to estimated spending. Only three to four main

stakeholders contributed to the expenditures during the years analyzed and three of the

four years were primarily funded by USFWS.

The toll of having to pay for almost all of the recovery expenses showed in the

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep analysis. Stakeholders participated little in the recovery

spending leaving USFWS to make up the majority of the costs. Since the costs were

primarily funded by one stakeholder it is no surprise the subspecies plan was

underfunded by almost a third.

Estimated costs doubled actual costs for the years analyzed. Planned spending

was roughly one million dollars, but actual spending was around $350,000 during the

years analyzed. Costs were difficult to determine for the Recovery Team, therefore some

estimates may have been far less than expected. Unfortunately, the plan may be

underfunded due to more charismatic species receiving funds, like the Louisiana Black

Bear.

Overall, the Recovery Plan’s main focus was to increase the population, and that

is where the majority of the funding went, 47%. The budget analysis determined the

Species Recovery Plan was utilized correctly from 2007 to 2010. The population

increased to around 300 individuals in 2011 from less than 100 in 2000 and remained

stable (USFWS, 2011).

80

4. Discussion

Though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ranking system is beneficial in

determining a species status it did not have any effect on spending in the analysis. The

Louisiana Black Bear was much less based on the ranking system, than the Bighorn

Sheep, but received far more funding. Sheep expenditures were less than half anticipated

costs, while the Black Bear’s expenditures nearly doubled its estimates in the years

examined.

Furthermore, the analysis illustrated that the number of stakeholders could have

an impact on expenditures outlined in the Species Recovery Plans. The Sonoran

Pronghorn and Louisiana Black Bear had at least six stakeholders contributing funds

leading both subspecies to be on or over budget. Unfortunately, one stakeholder

contributed the majority of the funds for the Bighorn Sheep, which could explain

expenditure estimates being far less than anticipated.

The Pronghorn and Bear had more stakeholders implementing their plans because

several agencies managed the land in which both subspecies occur. The Sheep occurs

primarily on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land, therefore not as many stakeholders took

part in implementing and funding the Plan. The few agencies managing lands in the

subspecies’ distribution provided financial and management incentives to the recovery of

the species but mainly coming from USFWS.

Stakeholders contributed according to their influence on the species. For example,

agencies supervising land in the endangered species habitat that had projects going on

contributed to the species recovery. Some of these projects could negatively impact the

81

subspecies; therefore responsible agencies took accountability for executing and funding

recovery efforts for all three subspecies.

Not all government stakeholders involved in the Species Recovery Plans managed

land in the endangered species’ range, but still contributed to the recovery. Some

stakeholders conducted research, built infrastructure, and converted habitat into

development and assisted with recovery. The stakeholders were held accountable for their

detrimental activities and took part in executing and/or funding the recovery plan.

Overall, the analysis provided vital information to determine how stakeholders

coordinated in executing and funding Species Recovery Plans. Additionally, the thesis

determined where funds were placed and how that compared to the recovery tasks

outlined in the Species Recovery Plan. The three subspecies analyzed had very different

outcomes.

82

5. Conclusion

Overall, funds were contributed accordingly because Sonoran Pronghorn,

Louisiana Black Bear, and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations all remained stable

from 2007 to 2010. Expenditures were properly directed to the tasks of most concern

producing stable populations. Stakeholders contributed properly and executed projects

productively.

The main goal of the Sonoran Pronghorn’s Recovery Plan was to relocate

individuals from one population to establish a second population in another part of

Arizona. Fifty one percent of the funding went directly towards these efforts and the

species had over six stakeholders contributing resources which led to an increasing

population in 2012.

The Louisiana Black Bear population fluctuated for many years, but increased in

2012. Stakeholders’ contributed the most time, energy and capital into researching and

protecting bear habitat. Like the Sonoran Pronghorn more than six stakeholders

contributed to Bear Recovery and expenditures were double what estimates presented.

One example is Natural Resource Conservation Service converted much more land into

suitable habitat than anticipated, increasing recovery costs.

Last, disease threatened the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep almost wiping out the

entire population in 1995 because of abnormally cold weather. The Recovery Team’s

largest concern was increasing the population through various conservation activities.

Unfortunately, the species’ funding fell shorter than anticipated primarily because the

species only had a couple of stakeholders contributing to its recovery throughout the

83

study. Also, it occurs on land managed almost entirely by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

The methods for the study determined how Species Recovery Plans were

implemented and financed through government stakeholders and compared them to the

goals illustrated in the Recovery Plans of the Sonoran Pronghorn, Louisiana Black Bear,

and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. This methodology worked well to narrow the focus of

each government participant in the Recovery Plans by utilizing graphs and charts.

Overall, the methods were successful for completing this work.

The budgetary analysis illustrated trends in each of the subspecies’ Recovery Plan

spending and determined if the money was effectively spent on increasing all of the

subspecies populations. Results from the recovery goals, stakeholder spending, and

species population estimates determined the effectiveness of each plan and gave an

understanding of the impacts government agencies have on these subspecies.

To begin the process spreadsheets were organized with ongoing tasks containing

costs for project costs and individual stakeholders. The spreadsheets organized the

priorities set forth in the Recovery Plan from the most significant to the least significant

with cost estimates attached. This helped obtain a view of individual project costs, overall

recovery spending and the government stakeholders associated with those challenges.

Additionally, spreadsheets were created for each individual department. This was to

illustrate the costs given to the recovery projects and show how much individual agencies

contributed to financially. Spreadsheets were a great way to illustrate the various projects

in each recovery plan and the different stakeholders impacts attributed to the goals of the

Plan.

84

The spreadsheets provided evidence of the various tasks while pie charts

illustrated which projects received the most funds, as well as, which government

stakeholder contributed the most money. One pie chart was created for each case to show

the goals of the Recovery Plan and how they were funded with percentages. Other pie

charts were organized by agency attributions to each Plan through each year analyzed.

Separate pie charts were created representing the various years for each individual case

study, 2007-2010.

One strength from the methodology used was the organization of the research.

Each Recovery Plan had raw data showing the costs and projects currently being funded.

Taking that data and organizing the information into spreadsheets showed the overall

recovery status for that specific year. The pie charts determined the percentages with

illustrations to see which agency was implementing the most funds, as well as, which

priority was given the most attention for the years analyzed.

Methodological weaknesses for the project were few, but difficult to overcome.

Species Recovery Plans do not have all the details, especially regarding costs. Cost

estimates had to be pulled from other peer reviewed documents or public documents from

the various states. This may have skewed the data somewhat. Some projects were

impossible to determine costs associated with them, therefore they were left blank.

Moreover, project end dates could not always be determined through USFWS

spreadsheets therefore, calls had to be made. USFWS officials did not even know if some

projects had been completed or not so that became an estimate.

The most difficult information to gather was individual spending from each

agency to specific projects. Raw data only gave total spending from the stakeholder for a

85

given year but nothing specific. The amount of funding for each project from each

agency was determined by various factors. Project costs were estimated with raw data

provided by USFWS. The spending was then calculated by comparing responsible

agencies to their projects, how much activity they had on the land, and how much land

they owned. This demonstrated government stakeholders that funded and implemented

the various projects.

Additionally, the budget analysis determined costs for recovering a species per

each individual project associated with the plan. The analysis illustrated how the budget

was determined and the objectives set forth to achieve the goals planned for the recovery.

The budget analysis was able to illustrate how costs were saving these three species.

Recovery Plans had estimated costs and the different goals for a species recovery. Once a

species’ goals were compared to the various projects being funded a conclusion could be

drawn. Funding coincided with the goals of the Plan leading to a successful Recovery

Plan for each subspecies.

There were several layers to the research for this thesis. Not only were the species

researched, but individual stakeholders, Recovery Plan goals, projects, and costs. Each

added another piece to the puzzle to determine if the Plans were successful.

Overall, projects that were funded for each subspecies increased their populations

making the Plans successful. The Sonoran Pronghorn population lingers around 120,

while the Louisiana Black Bear and Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep populations hover

around 400 in 2012. These numbers are larger than they were ten years ago illustrating

that Recovery Teams managed and utilized funds accordingly for the survival of each

subspecies analyzed.

86

One species was over budget, one was on budget, and the other was under budget.

The reasons for the discrepancies between their estimated and actual spending can be

attributed to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Each plan implemented funds

accordingly and each population either stabilized or improved between 2007 and 2010.

The analysis illustrated stakeholders allocated resources appropriately and recovery

efforts were successful because of stable populations in 2012.

87

6. Works Cited

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2010. State Report FY 2010 Louisiana. U.S. DOA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1-2.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2006. Wildlife Services-Louisiana. U.S. DOA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1-2.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2010. Arizona Game and Fish Heritage Fund 2010 Report to the Arizona Legislature. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-13.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2011. Arizona Statewide Pronghorn Management Plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-101.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006. Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 2005-2015. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1-20.

Baker, Beth.1999. Spending on the Endangered Species Act- Too much or not enough? BioScience, 279.

Barry M. Goldwater Range. 2005. Barry M. Goldwater Range: Military Training and

Protection of Endangered Species. U.S. DOD Air Force, 1-49.

Belenky, Lisa. 2009. RE: 60 Day Notice of Intent to Sue over Violations of Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act; Actions Relating to the Endangered and Management of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and Other Public Lands in Mono C. Center for Biological Diversity, 1-11.

Black Bear Conservation Coalition. 2010. Black Bear Conservation Coalition Newsletter. Black Bear Conservation Coalition, 1-16.

Brown, Charles. 2009. Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. U.S. Air Force, 1-399.

Brown, Gardner.1998. Economics and the Endangered Species Act. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3-20.

Bureau of Land Mangment. 2011. Environmental Assessment Livestock Grazing

Authorization. BLM Bishop Field Office, 1-65.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2010-2011 Annual Report of Recovery Program: A Decade in Review. California Department of Fish and Game, 1-57.

Cohn, Jeffrey. 2007. Return of the Pronghorn. BioScience, 317-320.

Cohn, Jeffrey .2001. Sonoran Desert Conservation. BioScience, 606-610.

Corns, Barbara. Last-Chance-Restoring the Louisiana Black Bear in Louisiana. LSUAgCenter.com. Retrieved July 6, 2012 from

88

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/publications/agmag/archive/2002/spring/last+chance++restoring+the+louisiana+black+Bear+in+louisiana.htm

Crouse, Deborah.2002. Endangered Species Recovery and the SCB Study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Perspective. Ecological Applications, 719-723.

Davidson, Maria. 2010. Louisiana Black Bear: Closer to Success. Louisiana Forest Stewardship Newsletter, 1-8.

ExpertGlossary.com. Biological Opinion. ExpertGlossary.com. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://www.expertglossary.com/water/definition/biological-opinion-bo.

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2008. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Sonoran Pronghorn . Industrial Economics, Inc, 1-101.

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2009. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Louisiana Black Bear. Industrial Economics, Inc, 1-106.

King, Sammy. 2006. The Role of the Wetland Reserve Program in Conservation Efforts in the Mississippi River Alluvial Vally. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 914-920.

Krausman, Paul. 2007. Bombing and Sonoran Pronghorn: A Clear and Present Danger? The Journal of Wildlife Mangement, 2820-2823.

Restani, M.A. 2001. Avian Conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus Recovery Priorities. Conservation Biology, 1292-1299.

Shogren, Jason.1999. Why Economics Matters for Endangered Species Recovery. Conservation Biology, 1257-1261.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 2011. Environmental Assessment: Research and Recovery Actions. U.S. DOI National Park Service, 1-104.

Simon, Benjamin. 1995. Allocating Scarce Resources for Endangered Species Recovery. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 415-432.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan 2005-2015. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1-60.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2001. Louisiana Black Bear. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1-3.

U.S. Air Force. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Proposal Range Enhancements at Barry M. Goldwater Range East. U.S. DOD Airforce, 1-49.

U.S. Border Patrol. 2009. Final Assessment for the Proposed SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project Ajo Station's Area of Responsibility U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. DOHS Customs and Border Patrol, 3-262.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management. USDA Forest Service, 1-82.

89

U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Protecting Endangered Species on Military Lands: The Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOD and U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlfe Service, 1-2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-59.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis). U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Intra-Service Biological Opinion for the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-65.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. RE: Biological Opinion for the Permanent Vehicle Barrier Project on the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-58.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Re: Yazoo Backwater Reformulation Project, Louisiana Black Bear (43910-2006-I-0397). U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-8.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Sacramento, CA, xiv+199.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument General Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management’s Five Livestock Grazing Allotments Project in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-11.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. RE: Biological Opinion for the Proposed Installation of 5.2 Miles of Primary Fence near Lukeville, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-56.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Action Plan. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife, 1-6.

90

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. RE: Biological Opinion on SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-137.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. RE: West Coast Basing of the MV-22 and Reinitiation of Formal Section 7 Consultation on Ongoing Acitivities a the Barry M. Goldwater Range by the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma, Yuma and Maricopa Counties, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-56.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Final Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of Sonoran Pronghorn. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2, 1-161.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Section7 Consultation on Military Training on the Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Maricopa, Pima, and Yuma Counties, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-111.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species Recovery Program. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Consulation on the SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-11.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. RE: Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the SBInet Ajo-1 Tower Project, Ajo Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector, Arizona; Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of a Forward Operating Base, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-61.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Sonoran Pronghorn Supplemental Water and Forage Project. U.S. DOI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-57.

U.S. Marine Corps. 2007. United States Marine Corps Installations Natural Resources Program. U.S. DOD Marine Corps, 1-28.

U.S. National Park Service. 2010. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Superintendent's 2010 Report on Natural Resource Vital Signs. U.S. DOI National Park Service, 1-27.

Villarreal, Miguel. 2011. An Inventory and Monitoring Plan for a Sonoran Desert Ecosystem: Barry M. Goldwater Range-West. U.S. DOI Geological Survey, 1-113.

Watson, Mandy. NPS.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturalscience/Sheep.htm.

91

West, Ben. 2005. Ecology and Management of the Louisiana Black Bear. Mississippi State University Extension Service, 1-12.